|
There's an article in The Atlantic on the decision that I think you folks might find entertaining. The crux is that the conservative justices were persuaded that what was going on was civil persuasion, not screaming and assault. I'm curious, and excited, to hear what folks think of this particular logic. Emma Green posted:If you are actually going to the clinic it's an embarrassing and emotionally difficult thing to go through even without the protesters and you just want it to be over.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's an article in The Atlantic on the decision that I think you folks might find entertaining. I think it's more that it could be civil persuading and that would be banned too. I'm sure there's probably one or two protestors in the US who try logic. (They're just drowned out by the masses of screaming monsters.) I wonder if a zone of silence would pass constitutional muster. Maximum vocal decibel level at a 1 foot distance from the mouth in the vicinity of the clinic during clinic hours. Totally content neutral, neatly fits into time-place-manner restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Assault might be a little strong, but certainly they're committing disorderly conduct. Hell, just stepping in someone's way while they walk down the side walk, much less screaming at them is probably sufficient to get a conviction. Is the issue that the Boston Police just don't want to be as aggressive against abortion protesters as the NYPD does for OWS protesters? There's no money to be had in abortions so it will never gain the full protection of the law. God I hate this country right now. I'm grabbing and slamming down at least one six pack tonight, I need to get loving drunk after reading today's political news
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Panel of elderly white men is out of touch with reality, news at 11
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
I guess that means Occupiers can now literally stand at the doors of Wall Street and scream at people and block them from going to work (so long they are near a sidewalk?), so yah?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
That was my point. There's no law saying the Occupiers can't stand in front of NYSE, they just get arrested for disorderly conduct when they do. This option is still technically open to Massachusetts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I guess that means Occupiers can now literally stand at the doors of Wall Street and scream at people and block them from going to work (so long they are near a sidewalk?), so yah?  You are just precious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
 If this is an accurate image, I understand why there was a buffer zone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:That was my point. There's no law saying the Occupiers can't stand in front of NYSE, they just get arrested for disorderly conduct when they do. This option is still technically open to Massachusetts. I was being semi-sarcastic in the sense that it will never happen, I am a moderate. This decision is a bit tough for me because I understand what SCOTUS is saying and would agree 99 percent of the time in this situation but with abortion and the heavy choice it brings, I can't get behind this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:
That picture is pretty mild. There were a few threads in ask/tell back in the day made by abortion escorts. Here's one I found from a quick search if you have archives: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3395109
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Are we really saying that a law that says "no one can stand on a public sidewalk within 35 feet of the entrance to a particular building" is ok? The MA law was wayyyy too broad. I understand (especially in light of that picture) that it's easy to make people seeking abortions VERY uncomfortable by standing in the buffer zone, but it's the first amendment. It protects expression that makes people uncomfortable. That's kind of the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
The SCOTUS decision basically says "hire some loving cops already", which is pretty reasonable considering the horrible things abortion protesters do is already illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Daremyth posted:Are we really saying that a law that says "no one can stand on a public sidewalk within 35 feet of the entrance to a particular building" is ok? But, they didn't strike down buffer zones. They struck down specifically buffer zones in front of abortion clinics to protect abortion seekers. Buffer zones to exclude liberal protesters are presumably still fine. The Supreme Court seems very not-content-neutral in deciding what's content neutral.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Magres posted:Sorry, what I'm asking is less about the ruling itself and more on the law in general. I fail to see how the things anti-choice protesters do does not constitute assault, like if there's actually any legal grounds for that or if it's straight up just "no one wants to enforce the law here because then the loving nutjobs are going to start firebombing them too." It is, but it's very hard to prosecute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Crazy thought: asking someone to keep some distance (but close enough to be seen and heard --- 35ft may be too far for that) may be better for free speech than having to have cops decide who is harassing and who is merely overly animated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Magres posted:So the answer is basically "because our country is loving stupid" then, I take it? SCOTUS Thread OT 2014: "Because Our Country Is loving Stupid"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:But, they didn't strike down buffer zones. They struck down specifically buffer zones in front of abortion clinics to protect abortion seekers. Buffer zones to exclude liberal protesters are presumably still fine. The Supreme Court seems very not-content-neutral in deciding what's content neutral. Which ones? This seems like a pretty reasonable ruling to me because the mass law seems problematic because it was a lazy way of dealing with problems and had free speech as collateral damage. That having been said if the supreme court is ignoring some sort of texas law that says people can't hang outside of gun shoppes and tell people trying to buy guns that guns are bad then I'll be happy to agree we have a problem... On the other hand if you're just complaining about something only tangentially related I'm not really going to be inclined to agree with you (on the issue of neutrality, I mean; on the issue of the first amendment I'll fall on the side of free speech on any issue short of 'I think it would be a fine idea someone here were to kill that gentleman over there wink wink'.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:But, they didn't strike down buffer zones. They struck down specifically buffer zones in front of abortion clinics to protect abortion seekers. Buffer zones to exclude liberal protesters are presumably still fine. The Supreme Court seems very not-content-neutral in deciding what's content neutral. It's a First Amendment ruling. Deal with it (and have cops do their jobs if there's criminal harassment or disorderly conduct going on)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
quote:In unrefuted testimony, petitioners say they have collectively persuaded hundreds of women to forgo abortions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:It's a First Amendment ruling. Deal with it (and have cops do their jobs if there's criminal harassment or disorderly conduct going on) We have half the country frothing at the mouth over stores saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas,' if cops actually started preventing these fucks from abusing women seeking abortions then the "War on Christianity" drumbeat would kick into overdrive with the volume dialed up to 15.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Hawkline posted:Is the fact that this is unrefuted on Coakley? Did whoever argue MA's side demonstrate how unfriendly these zones are, and they're not exactly bastions of civil persuations? Look, I don't know what you're trying to say here, but the only things that happen outside an abortion clinic are personal, caring, and consensual conversations. So there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Magres posted:We have half the country frothing at the mouth over stores saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas,' if cops actually started preventing these fucks from abusing women seeking abortions then the "War on Christianity" drumbeat would kick into overdrive with the volume dialed up to 15. Hawkline posted:Is the fact that this is unrefuted on Coakley? Did whoever argue MA's side demonstrate how unfriendly these zones are, and they're not exactly bastions of civil persuations? 'This is why we can't have nice things' isn't a sufficiently convincing legal argument to overturn the first amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:
The chancellor was indeed afraid for her safety. But a law that categorically banned such a gathering, even if peaceful, would be simply wrong. ShadowHawk fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:
Agreed, but it's also probably worth noting that the picture almost certainly isn't accurate since that looks a lot like they're trespassing on private property. The only way I could see that picture being accurate would be if it's downtown and the snow is covering up a city street. In which case they're jaywalking (or jaystanding).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:'This is why we can't have nice things' isn't a sufficiently convincing legal argument to overturn the first amendment. I'm not arguing for that - I'm actually fine with the ruling itself in a vacuum (even if that bit Roberts wrote that someone posted is an exercise in why I actively hope that man dies an agonizing death). What I'm not okay with is the state of affairs of other things, specifically that people can and do regularly get away with terrorizing women for getting abortions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Magres posted:I'm not arguing for that - I'm actually fine with the ruling itself in a vacuum (even if that bit Roberts wrote that someone posted is an exercise in why I actively hope that man dies an agonizing death). Yeah, I'm not ok with the state of affairs either, I'm just not ok with throwing free speech out outside of a vacuum just because we're not in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Hawkline posted:Is the fact that this is unrefuted on Coakley? Did whoever argue MA's side demonstrate how unfriendly these zones are, and they're not exactly bastions of civil persuations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
If you think the 35-feet ruling is bad, wait until Hobby Lobby when all corporations declare themselves Christian Scientist so they don't have to cover doctors 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Magres posted:How the gently caress does getting in someone's face and screaming that they're a murderer and should burn in hell not constitute assault? Common law assault is intentionally performing an act that would create an apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, or alternatively, it's an attempted battery that didn't hit anyone. Obviously the law may vary by jurisdiction, but it's probably hard to prosecute because words alone aren't enough to create an apprehension. Words usually have to be accompanied by some conduct. Even then, prosecuting this would be tough because the protesters' conduct probably wouldn't put someone in fear of "immediate" harmful contact. Threats of future harm like, "You're gonna suffer real hard for this when I get my friends together in a few days," wouldn't cut it. Assault would be putting up your fists and saying, "If you walk into that clinic, I'll break your legs." Or it would be attempting, but failing to physically grab someone to keep them from going inside the clinic. Assault is a very specific kind of crime. Just because someone wouldn't be guilty of it doesn't mean they wouldn't be guilty of some other crime or a civil action like intentional infliction of emotional distress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:
Wide sidewalks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
AshB posted:Common law assault is intentionally performing an act that would create an apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, or alternatively, it's an attempted battery that didn't hit anyone. Obviously the law may vary by jurisdiction, but it's probably hard to prosecute because words alone aren't enough to create an apprehension. Words usually have to be accompanied by some conduct. Oh, okay, I didn't know it was that specific. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Hawkline posted:Is the fact that this is unrefuted on Coakley? Did whoever argue MA's side demonstrate how unfriendly these zones are, and they're not exactly bastions of civil persuations? How would she do that? Hostile cross-examination of a nun to claim shes lying when its utterly unprovable isn't exactly a winning trial strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Bring in your own witnesses saying "yeah I had lunatics loving screaming in my face about how I was going to die and burn in hell for having an abortion?" Or does uncontested testimony just mean they didn't get cross-examined?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:
 It would ...I'm sad now. I can usually shrug off most of the Republican bullshit, but stuff like this and "gay conversion therapy", aka pray the gay away  make me furious at first, then just really depressed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Magres posted:Bring in your own witnesses saying "yeah I had lunatics loving screaming in my face about how I was going to die and burn in hell for having an abortion?" I am not a lawyer but I don't think this can happen at the Supreme Court level. At this point, it's about facts on the law and legal arguments. Also, it may surprise some people here but Martha Coakley is actually REALLY good at her job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Magres posted:Bring in your own witnesses saying "yeah I had lunatics loving screaming in my face about how I was going to die and burn in hell for having an abortion?" Those lunatics conduct is irrelevant unless the nun was the lunatic. The fact that a law might burden 100 people's conduct legitimately doesn't make it okay if it burdens one person's illegitimately - that nun saying "I just talk to them..." means the crazy people don't matter unless the nun was one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Magres posted:Bring in your own witnesses saying "yeah I had lunatics loving screaming in my face about how I was going to die and burn in hell for having an abortion?" She did not claim she converted everyone so that would not contest her testimony. And this is just really a stupid trial strategy because you can't win this by trying to claim the nun is lying when there's no evidence that can exist short of interviewing every single person who went in there. Its just a stupid idea to make it all about the hand-picked litigant who was selected because they're as immune to that as you can get. You do what Coakley did, talk about the situation as a whole and talk about the mob instead of the nun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I wonder how these guys would react to to someone counter-protesting with open carry. If we're gonna live in the NRA's fantasy world, might as well get some use out of it. gently caress it, clinic escorts exercising their freedom to open carry!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:If you think the 35-feet ruling is bad, wait until Hobby Lobby when all corporations declare themselves Christian Scientist so they don't have to cover doctors Somebody explain to me why this isn't going to actually happen so I can sleep tonight. I KNOW the Supreme Court is not really going to go "LOL companies don't have to give their employees poo poo if their God said they don't" but I don't understand the mechanics of this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Individual employers have been able to invoke RFRA for a long time and there's no epidemic of them converting to stick it to their nannies etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 00:54
|
|
