|
My understanding is that there are also organizations dedicated enough to clinic protesting that they will bus folks in daily if there's nobody to protest them locally.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Never mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
I feel like the solution to clinic protesters isn't buffer zones, it's axing all the other bullshit laws against them so they can more easily do things like own fenced parking lots, since excluding protesters from your own private property is way easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Javid posted:I feel like the solution to clinic protesters isn't buffer zones, it's axing all the other bullshit laws against them so they can more easily do things like own fenced parking lots, since excluding protesters from your own private property is way easier. The solution is society waking up and caring enough to get in their face. I doubt that is ever going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Can someone explain how the questions in Harris v. Quinn could possibly lead to the Court holding "national right to work go gently caress yourself"? I mean I see right to work is relevant in this case but I don't follow the logic on how that ruling could possibly come from this case. Or are people expecting one of those John Roberts style "chip away at everything good until America is the worst place on earth" opinions that would eventually make right to work go national?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Just an anecdote, but I live in New York and drove past a planned parenthood most mornings a year or two ago. There were still five or six old white people protesting out front every day. E: questionable source, looks like a lower but still significant percentage of the population there is Catholic. Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Just an anecdote, but I live in New York and drove past a planned parenthood most mornings a year or two ago. There were still five or six old white people protesting out front every day. I always find it funny when the topic of abortion comes up here and some people say "well obviously these pro-life people aren't sincere in their beliefs otherwise they'd *do* something". The local Planned Parenthood has always had someone out front any time I would pass it, often with a video camera to record them being there. It's about as dedicated as you could be short of actual violent action (and if that was a prerequisite for "sincere beliefs" then 99% of people here wouldn't have those either).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My understanding is that there are also organizations dedicated enough to clinic protesting that they will bus folks in daily if there's nobody to protest them locally. That too. But that's usually for particular events. The regulars are likely to be locals. One of my favorite protestors was this absolute ditz dressed to the nines in clothing that was proper for a young woman back when she was a young woman. Aging prom queen in denial. She wasn't rude or threatening at all. She actually didn't speak much if you didn't go up to her and engage. Stood on a corner across the way with a sign facing the road. She talked about how horrible abortion providers are and how she was helping to save the babies - and I told her that if she didn't leave I would donate the price of one abortion to the clinic they were at ( not pp - a for profit place ) so that the next woman who would have been turned away due to inability to pay would instead get her abortion. Unless she skedaddled. After a back and forthe to wrap her head around the idea and demonstrate I had the money on hand/was serious about it she fell silent for a few moments. Then she decided to level with me. No appeals to her 1A rights or threats of damnation if I did this. Not her. What I needed to understand was how happy her being here made people. And right at that moment a passing car honked support and she got this beatific smile on her face and lifted her sign at them. Then she looked at me triumphantly. See! See! They love me! She didn't articulate in a way the translates well but she made eye contact and with a gesture asked: What kind of rear end in a top hat am I, that I would wreck this for her? Make her go away? All she has to do is stand here with this sign and she gets ... Well more attention than she'd probably gotten in a long time. Couldn't I just take my moral quandary elsewhere? Not a speck of bully in her. A rare protestor. summaryB] she highlighted for me just how little negative feedback these people get. We talk about self created echo chambers and bubbles. But protestors aren't in their basements on obscure newsgroups. They are on the streets in public among random passersbye. The no-choice give them positive feedback. Praise. Recognition. Social status within a church group perhaps. The pro-choice ignore them. The escorts ignore them. The patients don't want to talk to them. The medical staff likewise. [B]They aren't bubbling themselves. We are bubbling them. And I don't have a specific thing to advocate but a lot of people posting about clinic protestors assume that abortion is why they are there. I've been offering that Choice to protestors for years now and the conversations I have with them suggest that this is not the case. They protest more for the fun of it than anything else. Though for most protestors the fun is less from being honked at and more from seeing a victims shoulders hunch and their pace quicken.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
One of my lottery fantasies is rolling up to a random clinic at a random time once a week and donating $largesum per protester to the clinic. Like the quarter guy from the other thread, but with many more digits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
Let's say I'm a bully. How many places can I go and yell filth at people without a nice policeman coming to cart me away to cool off/sober up? In groups? So we can outnumber our victim and thus be safe from physical reprisal? Come on. You know in your heart that those kids who used to throw buckets of blood on women in furs weren't motivated by ecological concern. They never did anything like that to guys in leather jackets. And at least some of the folks with hatchets chopping up bars in prohibition really just wanted to smash poo poo up for the hell of it and the temperance movement gave them the societal cover to behave badly. It ennobled them and protected them from the consequences those actions would normally result in. Habitual abortion protestors are mostly bullies who have found a way to get society to let them indulge themselves while at the same time crediting them with good intentions they don't actually have. Edit: see fertility clinics. They create embryos in batches and incinerate most if them. But there is no societal tolerance for protesting fertility clinics and people going for IVF will cheerfully yell right back at you and not be cowed at all. So no faux-life protestors. McAlister fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Javid posted:One of my lottery fantasies is rolling up to a random clinic at a random time once a week and donating $largesum per protester to the clinic. Like the quarter guy from the other thread, but with many more digits. In Colorado we have an "adopt a protestor" fund raiser. You can google it. If you donate a small sum during the "month of life" protests they tie a yellow ribbon to the rail in front if the clinic of your choice to show the protestors how many donations their protest has triggered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Let's say I'm a bully. How many places can I go and yell filth at people without a nice policeman coming to cart me away to cool off/sober up? Lots of places? I was in DC a few weeks ago and a Black Muslim group yelled at me about Israel and white devils or something. And of course there's Westboro...
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
McAlister posted:One of these things is not like the others. One of these things, isn't the same. 1A protects the right to be an rear end in a top hat. Don't like it? Don't go in public. Oh you're out in public? I'm sure you've got a lot of cool reasons why you don't have to hear it. So put on earplugs(or don't, whatevs). Prior restraint is prior restraint, smd. fake e: There was a reason this case was 9-0. I believe in abortion on demand, you still suck
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:30
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:1A protects the right to be an rear end in a top hat. Don't like it? Don't go in public. Oh you're out in public? I'm sure you've got a lot of cool reasons why you don't have to hear it. So put on earplugs(or don't, whatevs). Prior restraint is prior restraint, smd. So let's be clear about this. If I want to make sure my (phone) employees (/phone) know that I want them to vote a certain way I can stand at the poling place door with a few friends and tell them so? Its political speech so it's protected by 1A ... Right? There are no laws or court rulings forbidding political speech directed and private individuals who don't want to listen to it at a place they have to go to. If there were how would that effect your stance?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Lots of places? I was in DC a few weeks ago and a Black Muslim group yelled at me about Israel and white devils or something. At your doctors office while you were minding your own business? Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:And of course there's Westboro... Who are hated by pretty much everyone because they thrust their politics into the private lives of private citizens uninvited. Didn't volunteers form a human chain the last time they announced a funeral protest in advance to keep them away from the family? What is that, if not a restriction of their "free speech". Should the police have broken the human chain and given them access? Its a public cemetery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
McAlister posted:At your doctors office while you were minding your own business? No, on the street, like abortion protesters. quote:Who are hated by pretty much everyone because they thrust their politics into the private lives of private citizens uninvited. They usually don't get arrested though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
McAlister posted:So let's be clear about this. If I want to make sure my (phone) employees (/phone) know that I want them to vote a certain way I can stand at the poling place door with a few friends and tell them so? If the remedy involves prior restraint? Tough tits, even if we were talking about nuclear proliferation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
McAlister posted:So let's be clear about this. If I want to make sure my (phone) employees (/phone) know that I want them to vote a certain way I can stand at the poling place door with a few friends and tell them so? Seriously, I'm a bit surprised at the response against the First Amendment in this thread just because it was used to strike down a law targeting an unliked group.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:1A protects the right to be an rear end in a top hat. Don't like it? Don't go in public. Oh you're out in public? I'm sure you've got a lot of cool reasons why you don't have to hear it. So put on earplugs(or don't, whatevs). Prior restraint is prior restraint, smd. Close, but there's a better solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq94liFIBRY
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:No, on the street, like abortion protesters. The key parts of that was "minding your own business" and "bullying". Are you worried now because they made a big deal of following you back to your car and taking pictures of your plates? What did they do to make it about you personally as opposed to randomly yelling political slogans? Describe, please, how you gave no indication that you wished to discuss politics and ended up with them indicating that they view you as murderous scum for not agreeing with them and personally condemned you in particular among all the passers bye. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:
Its a lot harder for a small group to pose a credible threat to a large group - like a funeral party - than it is for a small group to threaten a single patient going to the doctor. The group dynamics are wildly different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
McAlister posted:In Colorado we have an "adopt a protestor" fund raiser. You can google it. If you donate a small sum during the "month of life" protests they tie a yellow ribbon to the rail in front if the clinic of your choice to show the protestors how many donations their protest has triggered. You got a good laugh, but you probably just refueled their crazy. I think the general rule is don't engage crazy people because they will stab you. You would understand if you've been to a corner store late late. The better strategy is to give them free stuff for a while, then stop. They will no longer achieve the same high just standing around, and they scurry off. It's a free clinic through, so resources probably won't allow this experiment. I think it will work. Femur fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If the remedy involves prior restraint? Tough tits, even if we were talking about nuclear proliferation. Question 1: So let's say I have an abusive ex who starts stalking me and I get a restraining order saying he can't get within X hundred feet of me. If I work at a reproductive health clinic and live next door to it can he protest at the clinic or not? Does his 1A rights trump my personal safety? Hell, the very concept if a restraining order is prior restraint. He hasn't attack me yet ... He's just obsessed with me and has a lot of hostility and uses a lot of violent language when talking about me ... But he still hasn't done anything yet. Should we wait till he does and then punish him for it rather than try to prevent it? Question two: What about the safety of the medical staff? threats are common and attacks happen. Question three: What if every clinic had a billboard type area where opponents could write their messages and contact information at the door? Then anyone interested in "consensual conversation" could call them. That allows political expression without compromising safety, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
McAlister, it might help refine your arguments on this subject if you familiarized yourself with the law on the different hypotheticals you're describing. They don't really provide any purchase or insight into the case at issue, because there's already fairly well accepted legal responses to each of these situations.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Femur posted:You got a good laugh, but you probably just refueled their crazy. I think the general rule is don't engage crazy people because they will stab you. You would understand if you've been to a corner store late late. ? The formal pledge-a-picketer program is all remote. Donations come over the Internet and the clinic staff ties the ribbons and published the totals. You don't actually get to adopt an individual protestor. I totally think they should but PP doesn't want to get personal on that level because they are better people than me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:McAlister, it might help refine your arguments on this subject if you familiarized yourself with the law on the different hypotheticals you're describing. They don't really provide any purchase or insight into the case at issue, because there's already fairly well accepted legal responses to each of these situations. And I'm looking at "why" those loopholes and exemptions exist to argue that a buffer zone around medical facilities is as much in the spirit of the first amendment as saying no yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is. I want you to articulate in your own words why other exceptions exist and how other conflicts of rights are resolved so I can apply your own reasoning to this case. And I don't know if you'd let my crazy ex stalk me by pretending to care about abortion or not. Whether or not you would changes the arguments I go with next. If I have to guess every position you might take these posts are going to get really really long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
McAlister posted:? I mean like ice cream, popcorn, t-shirts, whatever. Femur fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
McAlister posted:And I'm looking at "why" those loopholes and exemptions exist to argue that a buffer zone around medical facilities is as much in the spirit of the first amendment as saying no yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is. I'm not talking about my positions, I'm referring to the law's positions. If you continue to construct legal hypotheticals and ask us to play them out for you we have to recite to you, case by case, the entire first amendment jurisprudence while you look for things to object to. Please, start here and familiarize yourself with the case first. Then you can argue using the actual content of the law rather than playing 20 questions. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
McAlister posted:And I'm looking at "why" those loopholes and exemptions exist to argue that a buffer zone around medical facilities is as much in the spirit of the first amendment as saying no yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is. There is no restriction on yelling fire in a crowded theater.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:There is no restriction on yelling fire in a crowded theater. Ummmm .... There kinda is. Its a form of public endangerment and there are rules against it. Unless the is actually a fire of course. Though that's still a bad example as there are many reasons why "fire! In a theatre" lacks 1A protections ... It's not political speech, public endangerment, private property .... A buffer zone around medical facilities that are routinely harassed by assholes who claim the patients using those facilities are murderous whores going to hell who must be stopped to save imaginary babies ... is primarily a public safety issue. Women are part of the public after all. Most of it, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Remember that the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" line came from a decision used to jail war protesters, one which was overturned decades ago. Even if it has a valid point, it makes its own uncomfortable counterargument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Ummmm .... There kinda is. Its a form of public endangerment and there are rules against it. Right, but wouldn't a law against yelling "fire" in crowded places would fail the Brandenberg test?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If the remedy involves prior restraint? Tough tits, even if we were talking about nuclear proliferation. Oh, and your nuclear proliferation link qa about an injunction to stop the publication of an article.We are talking about specific hounding and threatening of individuals seeking medical care and medical staff providing that care. These are completely separate topics and 1A doesn't let you threaten or harass individual people. Let's you be a total dick to abstract groups of people. You can say that gays should be wiped out with 1A protection ( not a "true threat", assumed hyperbole ) but you can't point to Bob over there in accounting and threaten him personally for being gay with 1A protections. Accosting people personally as they go to the doctor/to work and doing other things no-choice groups do is not like compiling publicly available academic research into a single research paper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Right, but wouldn't a law against yelling "fire" in crowded places would fail the Brandenberg test? ...? I don't think that test is applicable as leaving a theatre isn't an illegal action so motivating me to do it isn't advocating I commit a crime. That test is whether or not to punish guy A who egged guy B into doing something illegal, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Can someone explain how the questions in Harris v. Quinn could possibly lead to the Court holding "national right to work go gently caress yourself"? I mean I see right to work is relevant in this case but I don't follow the logic on how that ruling could possibly come from this case. Or are people expecting one of those John Roberts style "chip away at everything good until America is the worst place on earth" opinions that would eventually make right to work go national? Since this was lost in the abortion-protest melee, while the case itself will probably only be directly relevant to public-sector unions, the implication is that a particularly broad ruling based on the First Amendment claims made by the appellants could be used as a basis to effectively overturn Abood v. Detroit (and its predecessors like Machinists v. Street) in a subsequent case. Otherwise, it'll just chip away towards the goal of national right-to-work rather than effectively forcing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not talking about my positions, I'm referring to the law's positions. If you continue to construct legal hypotheticals and ask us to play them out for you we have to recite to you, case by case, the entire first amendment jurisprudence while you look for things to object to. Doing responses as I read the link. 1- up front it says the justices are divided on reasoning. So, different justices different reasons. Which means that individual justices disagree with the reasoning of the other justices. What if they are all right about why the other justices are wrong? 2: the majority opinion: Basically they agree with the points I've been raising. 1A doesn't let you harass/intimidate/threaten people. It's good to be exposed to ideas in the public sphere, but people don't have to listen to you yap if they aren't interested. Just as 1A doesn't protect you from disagreement, it also doesn't compel me to listen to your spiel. The security interests of patients and doctors trump the 1A rights of protestors. The only disagreement was the size and placement of the buffer. And sure, if we were talking HUGE buffers this would be a concern. But 35 feet is well within shouting distance and readability for signs. So all we need to do to change their minds is get them to volunteer as escorts for a day at a clinic with active protestors in somewhere with a 6 foot personal buffer ( that they upheld because they totally agree with the spirit of the arguments I've been making ). This would educate them about practical realities and change their opinion on what the right size/placement of a buffer is. For comedy value, make it one of the majority of pp locations that doesn't even perform abortions but is aggressively picketed anyway ( of the 20 odd Mississippi locations, for example, only 7 perform abortion last I checked ). 2 - Scalia: RAWR! Tie those sluts down and make them listen to a nine month lecture about why abortion is a sin! My 1A rights mean you have to listen to meeeeeeeeeeeee! gently caress Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Femur posted:I think the general rule is don't engage crazy people because they will stab you. The rule ought to be don't threaten abortion clinics because they will shoot you. Its unfortunate that there's such overlap between the gunbunny crowd, the forced-birth crowd, and the "gently caress everyone else" crowd, because it'd be good to have a strong stock of armed citizens willing to create a few examples and put the fear into the rest of the herd. Some rear end in a top hat charging the entrance gets two in the chest and one between the eyes and these animals scatter. They ignore laws, morals, and civil discourse because they worship death, on a mechanical level. However, their mortal hearts and thoughts of family make actually dying an untenable prospect for them. I doubt martyrdom even holds an allure to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:They ignore laws, morals, and civil discourse because they worship death, on a mechanical level. However, their mortal hearts and thoughts of family make actually dying an untenable prospect for them. I doubt martyrdom even holds an allure to them. But enough about D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Doing responses as I read the link. McAlister posted:Basically they agree with the points I've been raising. 1A doesn't let you harass/intimidate/threaten people. It's good to be exposed to ideas in the public sphere, but people don't have to listen to you yap if they aren't interested. Just as 1A doesn't protect you from disagreement, it also doesn't compel me to listen to your spiel. The security interests of patients and doctors trump the 1A rights of protestors. No, it wouldn't change their minds. The left-leaning justices don't have a set of "practical realities" of abortion clinic entrances that you need to educate them on. They don't agree with the spirit of your arguments. They think 35 feet is too much and the nature of its application was too broad. the majority opinion at 19-20 posted:At the same time, the buffer zones impose serious burdens on petitioners’ speech. At each of the three Planned Parenthood clinics where petitioners attempt to counsel patients, the zones carve out a significant portion of the adjacent public sidewalks, pushing petitioners well back from the clinics’ entrances and driveways. The zones thereby compromise petitioners’ ability to initiate the close, personal conversations that they view as essential to“sidewalk counseling.” "shouting distance" is not the limit of first amendment freedom of speech. Protest is also not the outer limit: the majority opinion at 21-22 posted:The Court of Appeals and respondents are wrong to downplay these burdens on petitioners’ speech. As the Court of Appeals saw it, the Constitution does not accord “special protection” to close conversations or “handbilling.” 571 F. 3d, at 180. But while the First Amendment does not guarantee a speaker the right to any particular form of expression, some forms—such as normal conversation and leafletting on a public sidewalk—have historically been more closely associated with the transmission of ideas than others. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Can someone explain how the questions in Harris v. Quinn could possibly lead to the Court holding "national right to work go gently caress yourself"? I mean I see right to work is relevant in this case but I don't follow the logic on how that ruling could possibly come from this case. Or are people expecting one of those John Roberts style "chip away at everything good until America is the worst place on earth" opinions that would eventually make right to work go national? The plaintiffs are arguing that all agency fees for a government union are a violation of the First Amendment, since people might have a political objection to any change in the structure of government jobs. If this argument holds, no government union will be able to charge agency fees; this is right-to-work. You're right that this isn't quite "national right to work". There's no possible outcome where the ruling gets imposed on private businesses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Today is going to be an awful day for Women's health and unions
Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:27
|
|
