Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court shows hypocrisy (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think NARAL over-reacted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pi Li, nextstep, VClib

    if you read the opinion itself.

    The opinion does not invalidate buffer zones.  The opinion does not say states have to allow women entering or leaving a clinic to be harassed, to be blocked, or even to be touched  The opinion simply said that this law as written -- and as enforced against Ms. McCullen -- prevents you or me from simply walking up to someone on a public sidewalk -- what the Court has historically called a "public forum" -- and saying something to that other person.  And THAT part was overly broad and unconstitutional.  The Court specifically said that the state likely could write a law that was less broad and would survive constitutional scrutiny.  It simply said that a law essentially prohibits all speech in a public forum is one that "substantially burdens" the First Amendment rights of everyone, and the state has not shown that this substantial burden on First Amendment rights is the "least intrusive means" of preventing things like blocking access or physical violence.  It told the state, "write a narrower law that's focused on preventing blocking access and preventing physical violence and that is not focused on denying people their First Amendment rights to speak to somebody else in a pubic forum."  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site