Kirsten Powers writes at the Daily Beast that anti-free speech zones (at abortion clinics) could come back to haunt liberals in the future. This is in terms of McCullen v. Coakley, which was just heard at the Supreme Court, a case in which the state of Massachusetts created a law that establishes a buffer zone of 35 feet near abortion clinics. This simply restricts pro-life proponents. She goes on to write
What is perhaps most disturbing is that the Massachusetts law was created by people who call themselves liberal. It is also being defended by an assortment of liberals from the ACLU to Planned Parenthood. Which raises an obvious question: Is it now liberal to oppose free speech?
Yes, yes it is, Kirsten. At least from the hard-cores, the Progressives, who do all they can to shut down speech they disagree with, even going so far as to pass laws. Calling people racists, name calling, ad hominem attacks, saying “the science is settled”, controlling the majority of the media, writing letters to news outlets telling them not to publish certain points of view, claiming offense, claiming “hate”, inventing a “right”, etc. Leftists do not like allowing people to disagree.
They never did.
They were never about free speech. It was about overturning the majority. It was about overturning christian morals to promote indecency.
The Supreme Court should overturn this bad law that restricts speech.
They should also overturn the bad law that Congress passed restricting the free speech of the Westboro Baptist Church members who protest at military funerals.
We should also stop the Secret Service’s practice of instituting free speech protest zones to protect President’s from being exposed to protesting citizens.
Jeffery,
The Supreme Court overturned a law aimed at Westboro once, and I would have no problem with them overturning the one Congress passed after that. It is too broad.
The Secret Service often institutes “no protest” zones on private property, which is certainly fine.
However, since you are all for the abortion law, maybe we should pass a law the prohibits your friends from the occupy movement. They caused actual, not imagined, damages.
Maybe we should limit picket lines by workers. This one is a good one because when companies bring in replacement workers, those workers are subject to verbal and physical harassment, and real physical force.
Let’s arrest PeTA protestors because they deny access to working businesses and intimidate people.
The list is endless when you support taking away people’s rights. (which is what you are for.)
If we are going to do what you support, let’s go all the way.
gitarcarver,
But as I said, I’m AGAINST the Massachusetts law restricting free speech outside of abortion clinics and think the Supreme Court should overturn it and allow protestors as long as they obey other laws, e.g., no assaults, no physical blockades, no trespassing on private property.
How about the no pamphleteering laws in effect outside voting places on election days? Certainly that violates free speech when advocates must stay 100 feet from the door. Is that similar to the abortion buffer zone law?
Jeffery,
You said in the past that you were for the buffer zone law, and I thought you were being sarcastic in this thread.
The Courts have said that the government can institute a “time, place, manner” restriction on speech as long as there is a “public interest” and the rule is “content neutral.”
With electioneering, there is a legitimate interest to be served (mainly the orderly conduct at polling places) and the 100 foot rule doesn’t give one side or the other an “advantage.”
Here in my town, the code is that you can place one sign on your property advocating a candidate or issue. If you have 10 issues, you can place 10 signs. The problem with that is the restriction on the signs is based on the content of the signs. The City attorney has told the Council the code is illegal but they refuse to change it.
[…] He also noted that No One Should Be Surprised That Liberals Are Against Certain Free Speech. […]