The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests near abortion clinics.
The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.
The law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion
— nytimes.com
Massachusett's 35-foot buffer zone was initially enacted as a defensive mechanism, responding to a history of harassments and violence around clinics' entrances. The law had previously barred anyone from entering a fixed buffer zone around entrances to reproductive health care facilities (excepting those simply passing through, clinic employees, or those intentionally going in and out of the building). Plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court case effectively argued that those exceptions were biased towards supporters of abortion rights.
More on the architecture of abortion clinics.
9 Comments
Agree with the decision legally because had they upheld the law it could act as precedence for all attempts to stop protests but it needs to be combated with some measure to ensure that people are not getting harassed in any illegal way. maybe a business opportunity for a car/security service that walks you in with the assistance of Rottweilers to ward off protesters?
So how will this ruling affect the "free speech zones" aka limited protest zones enacted at large gatherings such as the political conventions? It would seem to imply that those zones are also unconstitutional as they limit my free speech. So I'm thinking that from now on I'm free to protest right on the front door of any politician I choose?
how about an ordinance that says "no smoking within 25' of an entrance"? shouldn't those be considered unconstitutional too?
sure, smoking can be harmful to your health, but as demonstrated by the events that originally led to this law being passed, so can protestors.
sure, smoking is annoying to people entering and trying to use the facilities of a given building, but so are protestors.
jla-x I very much like the Rottweiler tactic. Perhaps it needs to be crowdfunded?
Classic case of legislation missing the real problem - in this case, the problem being physical harassment or verbal threats, not someone speaking their mind. Limiting free speech because you don't like the content or position is not only unconstitutional, but pretty narrow.
donna, the rottweilers would be blamed for hurting the protestors, even if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing and defending their person. i can't condone animal cruelty (though i do sometimes condone person cruelty - maybe from bikers)
It's kind of depressing that no architect has yet described the obvious solution to this: put the entrance more than 35 feet onto private property. First Amendment speech rights end at the boundary between public and private property.
Randan, I agree. That's like somebody giving you one hundred dollars and then saying "you can spend this ANYWHERE, except for any place that sells [insert product here]."
Donna, it seems like this ruling would make all buffer zones on public property unconstitutional. Wonder how that's gonna play out. They have these zones in front of voting polls and some political events and we all remember the occupy protests and how that went down.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.