The US Supreme Court is poised to consider a Massachusetts law that limits antiabortion protesters to a 35 foot exclusion zone outside the entrances to abortion clinics.
As a First Amendment purist, I am sympathetic to the pro-life protesters who are challenging the statute.
But only if the Supreme Court also abolishes so-called “free speech zones” at places such as meetings of the WTO, and the Democratic and Republican national conventions. If teenage girls getting abortions should face harassment as a consequence of their actions, so should the politicians, CEOs, and other corporate parasites who use free-speech zones to insulate them from the victims of their crimes.
3 Comments.
When I was about twenty, a friend who was pregnant called me. She had an appointment at the clinic that day, but there was a protest scheduled and she was afraid to go alone.
We got there, and there was a unruly mob blocking the door. I pointed at the biggest guy & started walking straight towards him, my friend in my wake. I think he got a clue about *my* respect for *his* life & quickly moved aside. The rest of the mob got the idea PDQ, and shuffled out of our way.
Just as we were going through the door, a woman screamed right in my friend’s ear, “DON’T KILL YOUR BABY!!”
I got no problem with ‘exclusion zones,’ – but consider them the exact opposite of ‘free speech zones.’ There’s a big difference between, “STFU if you’re here” and “STFU anywhere but here.” There’s also a difference between ‘free speech’ and ‘protected speech’ – the biatch screaming in my friend’s ear deserves no protection under the law. That’s not ‘speech’ it’s ‘harassment’ and the mob itself nothing less than ‘intimidation.’
You have the right to speak your piece, but you do not have the right to interfere with someone else going about their daily business.
Why should women be subject to harassment? This isn’t a free speech issue, harassment isn’t free speech. Roe vs Wade was about the right to privacy, women shouldn’t have to be subject to shaming and harassment. If anything, the 35 feet area isn’t big enough, it should be the entire block.
Opinions like this is why you are becoming more irrelevant Ted, you are no friend to the left.
Albert, how do you distinguish one form of free speech from another? I think, and I imagine that you would agree, that anti-NAFTA protesters ought to be able to directly confront delegates to trade organization talks. They should be able to, in your words, harass the delegates as they come and go. Why? Because the issues are important and the protesters deserve to be heard.
From the vantage point of pro-life protesters, the issue is very serious: the murder of unborn children. You may not agree, but it is at the very least a highly debatable point, and if you thought unborn babies were being murdered surely you would think that you should have the right to confront those who are committing the murders.