Does Free Speech Mean That Women Are Obliged To Endure Harassment?

[phantom power]

I've been trying to think of some analogy that highlights what bullshit the anti-choice arguments are. So far, the closest I came was something like this: Suppose I put together a large-ish group of atheists in front of a church, and we all got to scream at the parishoners on their way into the church for worship every sunday, and shove graphic pictures in their face of the Crusades, or child molestation, or burning heretics at the stake. And if those parishoners complained, we claimed it was our sacred right to free speech, and look, they get a "buffer zone"!

That is the fundamental question behind a case that the Supreme Court will be hearing about “buffer zones” in front of reproductive health clinics.

The state’s attorney general, Martha Coakley, who is the lead defendant in the suit, said the 35-foot buffer zone created by the 2007 law was a necessary response to an ugly history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.

“This law is access balanced with speech balanced with public safety,” Ms. Coakley said. “It has worked extremely well.”

She added that there was every reason to think the law was constitutional in light of a 2000 decision from the Supreme Court upholding a similar Colorado law. “Nothing has changed except the court,” Ms. Coakley said.

The plantiffs in the lawsuit are arguing that their free speech rights entitle them to get in someone’s face and harass them. There’s a lot of tap-dancing around the issue, both in terms of minimizing what anti-choice harassers do at clinics and by trying to equate consensual interactions with non-consensual interactions. They’re doing this first by putting a couple of elderly women at the front of the case and hoping to exploit sexist, patronizing stereotypes about how old women are “harmless” to sell the case. They’re also trying to make it seem like an abortion clinic is simply a platform to “debate” the issue between various sides, instead of a medical center where some people are there to help the patients and some people are there to hurt them.

Except that the front of the clinic is not a debate platform where everyone gets to stand up and make their arguments about abortion for an audience to decide. It’s a clinic. Both sides are not the same and not equal. For one thing, clinic workers aren’t “speakers” for any side. They’re not trying to persuade women. On the contrary, the evidence actually shows that abortion clinic workers by and large are not invested in the final outcome of a woman’s decision and are only there to help a woman get the ends she has determined for herself are the best. If a woman comes in and, after talking to the doctor and getting an ultrasound, decides to change her mind (exceedingly rare, by the way), then that’s fine. Anti-choicers would love to pretend that women coming into clinics are just confused and that there’s “two sides”—one pushing for abortion and one pushing against—that need to be heard out. That’s simply put, a lie. The “two sides” are people who are there to help women make the best decisions for themselves and people who are there because they wish to harass women whose personal medical decisions they disagree with. If a bunch of people felt entitled to, say, get up in men’s faces and scream at them as they entered a heart clinic in order to get their cholesterol measured, this would not be even remotely confusing.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/13/does-free-speech-mean-that-women-are-obliged-to-endure-harassment/

[sufrommich]

1. Very good analogy. nt

[leftyohiolib]

2. so we are alll ok with being put in free speech cages when trying to protest bush and his supporters

bush wanted a buffer zone. "oh but this is completely different because......... the 1st amendment is a two way sword for sure but we amend it for things we want then they get to amend it for the crapo they want

[jeff47]

15. The abortion clinic buffer zones are still close to the clinic

within view and earshot.

The "First Amendment Zones" were beyond visual and auditory range of the President.

Not the same.

[sufrommich]

19. In most states the distance one must stay from

the voting booth with pamphlets is farther than the distance these lunatics have to stay away from a woman entering a clinic.

[onenote]

3. Here's another analogy

A total asshole puts together a group of anti-gay religious crazies to appear and picket and wave incredibly offensive signs at the funerals of soldiers and other individuals whose deaths were 'newsworthy'. When the targets of this abuse sued claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress, the case ended up before the Supreme Court, which ruled 8-1 (with only Justice Alito siding with the targets of the abuse) that the First Amendment protected the crazies.

[SidDithers]

50. Well, that's much less likely to happen than crazed atheists...

Oh wait.

Nevermind.

Sid

[Egnever]

4. Nope

No one has to endure anything you are free to ignore it and walk away or give it back. Lots of options out there besides enduring it.

[Small Accumulates]

7. No, not a lot of options if your need is to obtain an abortion

Unless, of course, you mean taking advantage of the tried and true back alley practitioner.

[geek tragedy]

9. O rly?

yeah, just ignore it. It's only the most private medical decision a woman can make--no biggie to make them run a gauntlet of self-righteous fundyclown jackaloons calling them a baby-killer.

[Egnever]

10. Blah blah blah

If it is so important or such a common occurance. Why arent you out there countering them instead of posting pictures on an internet board?

Not a damn thing stopping anyone from getting in these clowns faces.

[geek tragedy]

11. have you ever talked to a woman who's in the process of deciding to get

an abortion?

You know what they're not in the mood for? Getting in someone's face.

[Egnever]

12. Ok

What is your excuse?

[NCTraveler]

27. I have thought about countering them at our local abortion clinic.

It only took a couple seconds of thought to realize how bad of an idea that is. It would simply add to the number of people at the entrance of the clinic. Doesn't take much in the way of thought to figure that one out.

[Egnever]

29. So because you are afraid of how it might look

If you counter protested. We should outlaw free speech?

[NCTraveler]

31. I don't think you read posts. You just incoherently reply.

If this reply was for me, try reading my post again.

[Egnever]

34. Seems to be what you were saying

Maybe you could clarify.

[geek tragedy]

36. how many people and how many fights do women making private

decisions want distracting them as they walk to see their doctor?

Answer: zero.

[NCTraveler]

43. My post was crystal clear. Your response had nothing to do with it.

Seems to be a pattern with your responses. You know what you want to say and find a way to do it no matter what you are responding to. Then, on a more shady note, you like to put words in peoples mouth. Things that can in no real way be extrapolated from their posts. It is a highly disingenuous style of debating. Have a good day.

[Egnever]

46. LOL talk about projection

Have a good one!

[Small Accumulates]

39. These are incendiary people. The clinics are concerned encountering them will lead to violence

Which, unfortunately, would make the situation even more dangerous for those women seeking health care. This is one more way in which this is not protest, but terrorism.

[NCTraveler]

45. The fact that I put the concern of these women over that of the protesters....

is why I was able to come up with the decision to stay away on my own. You are right in your post. They have found a way to display their hate that makes it very difficult to counter them. It is hate.

[Small Accumulates]

64. Agreed, Traveler! n/t

[jeff47]

13. Yes, they're free to walk away from the abortion clinic. That's the protester's goal.

You don't quite understand what they're doing, do you?

[Egnever]

16. Complete hogwash

Everyone understands what these and any protestors are doing. The fact remains in a democracy someone is going to be advocating something you dont like. Deal with it or find another form of government more suitable to your tastes.

Again there is nothing stopping anyone from getting in these peoples faces. Go do it!

[jeff47]

20. If laws were actually enforced against them, you'd have an argument.

However, the "buffer zones" came into being because the protestors were ignoring laws about assault and harassment, and had enough people around to overwhelm the local police's ability to enforce those laws.

This isn't two sides of an argument. These protestors are assaulting women. They are breaking a host of laws. You are cheering for them.

[Egnever]

24. No i am cheering free speech

Something you seem to have a problem with.

[jeff47]

26. Again, if all they were doing was talking, you would have a point.

The protesters are not just talking. Once again, they're assaulting women. You are saying that's a wonderful thing.

[Egnever]

32. What is it with people

That have to make up crap like you do here?

No where did i say what they are doing is wonderful. Is your argument so weak?

[jeff47]

35. No, my argument's fine.

You are discussing the issue as if the only thing going on is two groups talking.

I'm making repeated attempts to get you to realize that is not what was going on.

Which is why "buffer zones" were created - to return the situation to two groups talking.

You are claiming buffer zones are terrible because it's just two groups talking. That is not the case. It's been pointed out to you multiple times that this is not the case. Even a casual familiarity with history would lead you to understand this is not the case.

Yet here you are, continuing to claim it is. Only thing that makes sense is you liking what these protesters are doing.

[Niceguy1]

47. charge and prosecute

Those who are commiting the assults.

[jeff47]

49. Not enough cops.

It's individual people stepping in front of the women in a massive crowd. It's not easily seen, unless the cop is watching carefully. When when the cop is busy arresting/processing one person, the cop is not watching carefully.

Local politicians send only enough police to prevent a full-scale riot in order to minimize the protesting of their re-election.

Arresting 3 when there's 100+ people is not an effective deterrent. Especially when protesters consider such to be a badge of honor.

However, it's very easy for a small number of cops to enforce a buffer zone.

[Niceguy1]

52. that doesn't sound like assault to me.

But if a judicial order or law is passed guaranteeing free access then that can be enforced. Like others, I think setting the precedent of free speech zones a bad idea

[jeff47]

53. That's because you apparently didn't bother to read the rest of the posts in the thread

where more detail was provided about what they do.

But if a judicial order or law is passed guaranteeing free access then that can be enforced.

Really? You're concerned about "free speech zones", but think it should be legal to block access to any private property absent a judicial order?

[Niceguy1]

55. so blocking access equates to assult?

What about when our protesters block access to whatever we are protesting at the moment? Should the be considered assult, too? I guarentee you what ever laws we put in place against them will be equally used against us as well....

[jeff47]

57. Nope. Again, it's covered elsewhere in the thread.

Shockingly enough, these aren't the only posts in the thread.

What about when our protesters block access to whatever we are protesting at the moment? Should the be considered assult, too?

So....you think it should be legal to block access to anywhere?

K. I'm gonna block the freeway onramp. Nothing should happen, right?

Your right to protest ends when it blocks other people's rights. Doesn't matter if you are protesting against TPP or abortion.

[Niceguy1]

59. Those people arent charged with assult for blocking an on ramp

[jeff47]

61. And when 100 people do it?

Hint: Not all 100 get arrested. Especially when the situation is as poorly policed as an abortion protest.

So, is it a fundamental right to block access to private property or not?

[Niceguy1]

65. i guess it depends

On the political affiliation of the people doing the protesting

[jeff47]

67. That's a rather odd way to define "fundamental right". (nt)

[Niceguy1]

68. I am merely stating the

Outcome of your position on the topic.

[jeff47]

69. No, blocking access is not a fundamental right, no matter what it is blocking.

The freeway example was an attempt to get you to think about what you're posting.

[Orrex]

51. Just for clarification, how exactly are they assaulting women?

Not disagreeing with you, just making sure I'm clear on what you're saying.

[jeff47]

54. Step directly in front of the woman, then scream in her face

If the woman attempts to step around the protester, they move to remain in front of her and continue screaming.

In the vast majority of jurisdictions, that's assault. (Keep in mind assault doesn't require physical contact - that's battery).

[Orrex]

58. Thanks.

That would clearly seem to be outside the bounds of protected speech, regardless of what SCOTUS might decide.

It would be like claiming that I am a performance artist and that my constitutionally-protected performance includes me punching an unwilling audience member in the face.

[jeff47]

63. While it's outside the bounds of protected speech

it is not easily enforced. There's a large crowd of protesters, so it's difficult to see the woman being harassed unless the cop is paying close attention. Cop sees one protester do it, and moves to arrest them, process them, and so on. That takes time. In the meantime, the cop misses a dozen other incidents. The cop also has to stop and interview the victim, further delaying her.

Theoretically, a large police presence could handle it. But local politicians are loathe to send a large police presence. Either the politicians are anti-abortion themselves, or they want to minimize the protests of their re-election events.

Enter buffer zones. Easily enforced by a small number of cops, and the victim is the abortion clinic itself - and it's not going to be late for an appointment.

[Orrex]

71. Thanks again for a clear articulation.

Enter buffer zones. Easily enforced by a small number of cops, and the victim is the abortion clinic itself - and it's not going to be late for an appointment.

If corporations can be said to have "religious rights" as is currently pending on SCOTUS agenda, then they should be able to argue that they deserve protection from this manner of assault just as readily.

[TalkingDog]

56. After reading your responses, it's clear that you have no idea what the 1st Amendment is.

Or what it is supposed to do.

The 1st Amendment keeps the GOVERNMENT from impinging on the speech right of it's CITIZENS.

That's all it does.

It in no way, shape or form, says that people protesting a private business transaction (that's what medical care is, a private business transaction) have the right to do so without restriction. If they protestors want to protests abortion law, they should get themselves to the Capital Building.

If a business is being picketed, the business can, and often does, ask that the picket line not impede business. Legally, they have a right to do so. Protesters can be removed from private property as trespassers. The US Supreme Court has upheld some state laws setting limits on how close protesters may approach clinic customers on public property without permission of the customer. http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/ The case is from 2000. It's settled law.

If a picket or protest line becomes abusive or harassing they should be shut down.

Abortions and laws regarding abortions can be protested anywhere and the point is made. So why choose the entrance to the building? Solely to intimidate the women entering the building.

You are either lacking the intelligence to understand the not-so-subtle nuances involved or you don't care to.

[kelly1mm]

17. And they are also free to walk into the abortion clinic. There is no right not to

be offended in the US.

[jeff47]

21. And if the protesters were not standing between the woman and the clinic, that might work.

However, the protestors place themselves between the women and the clinic, block their path and scream in their faces.

Kinda hard to walk into the clinic when there's someone standing directly in your way screaming at you. Attempts to step around them just results in them moving to remain in the way.

The protesters bring enough people to overwhelm the local police, so they have plenty of people to scream while a very small number are arrested.

There is no right not to be offended in the US.

And if we were only talking about "being offended", that might be relevant!

[Capt. Obvious]

23. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Jan 13, 2014, 02:39 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Nope
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4324397

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

trolling with Conservative talking points

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jan 13, 2014, 02:45 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The patriarchy made me vote this way
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Trolling with conservative talking points? Really? I am not getting that from the poster's response. He is saying that free speech is absolute and the solution to speech is more speech--he is pretty clear about it downthread, too. He's not suggesting that the people getting abortions yell back--he's saying that pro-choice activists get in the faces of those assholes. I can't hide this, the alerter hasn't proven that this guy is a conservative on this matter. He's coming across as a free speech advocate.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ah ...seeing what will stick? Another bogus alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I may be slow on the uptake today, but I just don't see where this post reaches banning level.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What a bullshit alert. What about good advice is a conservative talking point? Admins should double check the alerter here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've never heard "give it back" as a 'conservative talking point', and by definition, talking points have to be a common argument.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[L0oniX]

25. Jury results 6-0 Hey alerter ...check it out.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

trolling with Conservative talking points

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jan 13, 2014, 02:45 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The patriarchy made me vote this way
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Trolling with conservative talking points? Really? I am not getting that from the poster's response. He is saying that free speech is absolute and the solution to speech is more speech--he is pretty clear about it downthread, too. He's not suggesting that the people getting abortions yell back--he's saying that pro-choice activists get in the faces of those assholes. I can't hide this, the alerter hasn't proven that this guy is a conservative on this matter. He's coming across as a free speech advocate.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ah ...seeing what will stick? Another bogus alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I may be slow on the uptake today, but I just don't see where this post reaches banning level.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What a bullshit alert. What about good advice is a conservative talking point? Admins should double check the alerter here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've never heard "give it back" as a 'conservative talking point', and by definition, talking points have to be a common argument.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. Jinx

[L0oniX]

38. OFFS ...another misogynist homophobic racist post

[phantom power]

48. I don't think everybody sees the conservative pattern of the argument

"If corporations misbehave, then consumers should take their business elsewhere"
"If your health insurance is too expensive, go find someplace cheaper"
"If you want to marry your same-sex partner, then move to a state with gay marriage"
"If you don't love America, then leave it"

"If you don't like pushing past a mob of screaming religious freaks saving bloody fetuses in your face and making death threats, then just don't get an abortion."

Conservatives love that kind of argument.

[Cofitachequi]

40. Unfortunately, they have a right to express ther opinion, and it must be endured.

same way defense contractors have to tolerate it when we march on them, or the Savannah River Nuclear Plant has to tolerate it, or the School of the Americas has to tolerate it when we march on Ft. Benning, Georgia.

The best we can do is offer our support and understanding to the women who have to make this difficult choice, so they do not feel alone or put upon by these few.

It is little solace that the bigger idiots these folks make of themselves, the less they find support in the country.

[jeff47]

42. If that was all they were doing, you'd have a point.

They are not just expressing their opinion. They are assaulting the women as they try to get medical care.

"Buffer zones" were created to return the situation to "just expressing their opinion".

[Cofitachequi]

62. An assault is an assault and shoiuld be prosecuted wether it is at a clinic or

at a Nuclear Bomb Plant or at a military base (the analogies I used). if assault is taking place, that is different from the expression of opinion, however an opinion that annoys you is not assault.

[jeff47]

66. Theoretically, it would be.

In reality, there's problems.

There's a large crowd of protesters, so it's difficult to see the woman being harassed unless the cop is paying close attention. Cop sees one protester do it, and moves to arrest them, process them, and so on. That takes time. In the meantime, the cop misses a dozen other incidents. The cop also has to stop and interview the victim, further delaying her.

Theoretically, a large police presence could handle it. But local politicians are loathe to send a large police presence. Either the politicians are anti-abortion themselves, or they want to minimize the protests of their re-election events.

Enter buffer zones. Easily enforced by a small number of cops, and the victim is the abortion clinic itself - and it's not going to be late for an appointment.

[Small Accumulates]

5. These people aren't protestors, they're bullies threatening women, which is assault

These laws are protection against threat of physical harm. Anyone who's been in the vicinity of these anti choice lunatics has felt that. They are terrorists attempting to terrorize women out of fighting for their own lives and well-being. This is not protest, it is terror.

[sufrommich]

14. Yep,they're stalkers too.nt

[kelly1mm]

18. The supreme court disagrees with you. nt

[Small Accumulates]

22. Yes, that's true. The Supremes are often wrong. n/t

[kelly1mm]

28. True, but in this instance, I agree with the SC. But I have been called (and do not disavow)

a free speech absolutist.

[Small Accumulates]

33. Which I hope serves you well. n/t

[shraby]

6. I would think free speech would extend to women who need to educate some outspoke and crude men.

[geek tragedy]

8. are we talking about the internet or in 'real' life? nt

[HockeyMom]

37. My experience going into a PP Building

I was with my then 4 year old daughter and she was going to the dentist in the same building. An Old Coot came up to us and patted her on the head. "Don't TOUCH ME, she said to him. He then tried to give me some of his literature, which I tore up and threw on the ground. "I am a PRO CHOICE MOTHER", I told him. From the look on this face, WE could have slapped him in the face. lol You want to dish it out, well, be prepared to TAKE IT.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. If I had to give a one-word answer, it would be "yes".

There are certain forms of harassment which should be prohibited.

But there are a great many which people, including women, should be expected to endure.


But any protection you want for abortion clinics will also have to be applied *against* groups like Occupy, and all other protestors, which means that they can't, unfortunately, be afforded very many.

Noteably, though, people are *not* obliged to endure intimidation - the moment protesters give the people they're protesting at legitimate concern for their safety, the law should step in. I'm not sure how literally you mean "screaming in people's faces", but the if protesters are literally invading people's personal space - rather than screaming from a distance - then that isn't just speech, it's action, and can be prohibited.

[jeff47]

44. And that's why 'buffer zones' were created

They were indeed "invading people's personal space". Usually they stood right in front of the woman, blocking her path, while screaming at her. If the woman tried to walk around, the protester moved to continue to block her path.

The usual tactic was to bring along plenty of people, so the few police that responded to the situation were so overwhelmed that they could not stop the assaults.

Enter buffer zones. Which moved it back to the situation you describe as positive. The buffer zones are far closer than any "free speech zone" or other attempt to push away political protesters. The "buffer zone" is still within sight of the clinic, and definitely within earshot.

But it's not nearly as effective as screaming in a woman's face, so time for the SCOTUS to take those away.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Clearly not.

States each have their own definitions of "harassment", and it's against the law.

Also, you can be arrested for saying something to another that would incite a reasonable person to physical violence.

[DallasNE]

70. Buffer Zones Are Not Unique To Planned Parenthood

There are buffer zones around polling places to prevent the disruption of voting and the distance is greater than the 35' in this case. There are also buffer zones around work areas with ongoing labor disputes (picket lines) and those too are greater than the 35' here. Surely the Justices realize that when they are considering one buffer zone they are setting the rules for all buffer zones because they all have the same common thread -- freedom of speech. Then there are the zones between competing demonstrators. Make no mistake, all of these will be impacted by this Supreme Court decision.

[mountain grammy]

72. Abortion clinics only exist to shame and degrade women..

this is a private medical decision and procedure. Women with means can go to their private physician. This is bullshit and always has been. These people have no right to be there. Let them protest at the legislature or the governor's office. They have no business at a medical clinic where people are being treated. They can stick their free speech up their ass.

I went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Denver and was screamed at by these idiot freaks. After that I became a volunteer escort. Then the buffer zone law was passed, and it was necessary. Now these women hating corrupt bastards on the court are going to rule for "free speech" because they will NEVER know what it's like to be pregnant.

No, these so called "protesters" have no right to be there, NO RIGHT.

[kelly1mm]

80. No right to be on a public street/sidewalk? Really? nt.

[Riftaxe]

73. The 1st Amendmeant clearly states the Goverment shall balance speech...

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)

doesn't it?

[thucythucy]

74. Coakley is the defendant in this case.

As the attorney general, she's obliged to defend the commonwealth of Massachusetts because it's being sued.

It's the clinic harassers who are bringing suit, choosing to go to court. They're the ones desperate to be in the news.

[Riftaxe]

75. Good point.

I will edit the last part out, although I have as much respect for the woman as she has integrity.

[JVS]

76. No.

[Lint Head]

77. The Constitution states that the Federal Government cannot suppress speech and it must be free.

Anyone can speak freely but there can be blow back from the person who opposes what one says. That would be 'their' free speech.

[Jim Lane]

81. The First Amendment permits reasonable regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech.

That was settled Constitutional law for some decades before Roe v. Wade was even decided.

You're free to inveigh against abortion or TPP or whatever, but you aren't allowed to rent a sound truck and drive around residential areas all night long, blasting your political views while people are trying to sleep. If the state has designated a particular highway as a scenic highway, where no billboards are allowed, then you won't get an exemption just because, instead of selling hemorrhoid remedies, you want to put up an anti-abortion or anti-TPP billboard. As others have mentioned, you're free to hand out leaflets touting a candidate for elective office, but the state can prevent you from handing them out within fifty feet of a polling place.

What's a "reasonable" regulation of time, place, or manner? That's not always clear. Courts will balance the government's legitimate interest in the restriction against the burden on free speech (especially in light of what alternatives are left open to the would-be speaker).

A 35-foot buffer zone is much less burdensome than what the City of New York imposed when Shrub spoke at a fundraiser in Manhattan. We protestors were kept about ten times that far away.

[RainDog]

78. k&r n/t

[Drew Richards]

79. Tell that to Bush and his free speech corrals around the corner from events.