re the abortion demonstrators case - it appears to be the one described here, where there are links to a number of sources, including those related to at least one 7th Circuit decision in which Wood was involved.
Admittedly, I suppose it's telling that the Supreme Court apparently decided 8-0 that Scheidler et al were engaged in wide-spread intimidation (technically a loss, as they were being sued for violation of anti-racketeering laws).
it's worth noting that at least one trial court found the defendants in the case to have committed four ‘acts or threats of physical violence to any person or property’. i guess maybe there's a very narrow sense in which merely threatening violence is ‘peaceful’...
i admit i'm torn about these kinds cases - i support anti-abortion activists rights to be loud, obnoxious, and tasteless, because, well, i value my right to be loud, obnoxious, and tasteless, and many of my opinions are significantly less mainstream than thinking abortion is murder. i feel like what a lot of the liberal-abortion-access groups really want is a creepy blanket prohibition on this kind of loud obnoxious tastelessness. on the other hand, it's not hard to imagine ways that in practice this loud obnoxious tastelessness might cross line into various acts of obstruction and violence that are significantly less acceptable.
I'm in general agreement. There's a point where you have to step back and let them say whatever the hell they want, but there's also a point where a woman getting a medical procedure is rather explicitly threatened by having a bunch of right-wingers screaming at her outside the clinic.
Admittedly, that line is clearly crossed once those protesters are suggesting they'll burn things and kill people if all the sinning doesn't stop.
I think, personally (not on a legal level, because it's a hard distinction to make), that it comes down to the level of anger involved. There's nothing wrong with making any sort of "you're going to hell" / "this poor baby is crying because you don't want it" / whatever protests and signs they make around clinics.
Screaming to a woman about her being hellbound and calling her a monster crosses that line, too.
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
i admit i'm torn about these kinds cases - i support anti-abortion activists rights to be loud, obnoxious, and tasteless, because, well, i value my right to be loud, obnoxious, and tasteless, and many of my opinions are significantly less mainstream than thinking abortion is murder. i feel like what a lot of the liberal-abortion-access groups really want is a creepy blanket prohibition on this kind of loud obnoxious tastelessness. on the other hand, it's not hard to imagine ways that in practice this loud obnoxious tastelessness might cross line into various acts of obstruction and violence that are significantly less acceptable.
Reply
Admittedly, that line is clearly crossed once those protesters are suggesting they'll burn things and kill people if all the sinning doesn't stop.
I think, personally (not on a legal level, because it's a hard distinction to make), that it comes down to the level of anger involved. There's nothing wrong with making any sort of "you're going to hell" / "this poor baby is crying because you don't want it" / whatever protests and signs they make around clinics.
Screaming to a woman about her being hellbound and calling her a monster crosses that line, too.
Reply
Leave a comment