how to protest after mccullen v coakley

[dilletante]

i've seen a lot of grumbling about the recent supreme court decision striking down massachusetts's law providing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. most significantly, noting that the supreme court itself has a 100-foot buffer zone in similar fashion

Comments

[twoeleven]

most significantly, noting that the supreme court itself has a 100-foot buffer zone in similar fashion.
to the limits of my ability to figure it out, the congress gave SCOTUS the plaza around the court building to do what they want with it. if so, it's private property the same way an unfenced lawn is. SCOTUS did try to lay claim to the sidewalk around *that* -- which is the opposite of how they ruled in mccullen -- but a lower court told them no by the reasoning they ended up using in mccullen (public sidewalk, public protest). what goes around, comes around? :)

to my unlawyerly eye, the plaza around the supreme court building is no different than the white house law, other than the latter being fenced off. trying to exercise one's first amendment rights too close to the white house is not recommended these days. AFAIK, protesters have been chased off to the ellipse for a couple decades at least.

i'm kind of looking forward to the new era this ought to usher in, in which "legislative counselors" throng the areas outside all

[dilletante]

to my unlawyerly eye, the plaza around the supreme court building is no different than the white house law[n]

in the sense of being buffer zones our rulers establish to protect themselves from having to interact with their subjects except at their own instigation?

[twoeleven]

nah, that's what the secret service is for. ;)

i'd say in "in the sense that 'public buildings' are private property belong to the government". if you'd like a concrete demonstration of the legal principal, try to enter your local military base. :)

but more directly, in the sense that SCOTUS didn't merely say "this is ours and you can't have one". they tried that once with the surrounding sidewalk, but wisely didn't complain when caught at it.

as a practical matter, if planned parenthood had a building on a deep set-back with a private driveway, the problem would go away. the protesters could stand on the sidewalk all day, but nobody in the building or coming/going to it would care. obviously, the cost of buying such a lot is pretty high, but isn't that what kickstarter is for?

(i'm somewhat serious, actually: given how passionate people are about abortion rights, it wouldn't surprise me if they could raise millions of dollars that way. arguments about undue burden on women exercizing their rights under roe are the

[dilletante]

i'd say in "in the sense that 'public buildings' are private property belong to the government". if you'd like a concrete demonstration of the legal principal, try to enter your local military base. :)

but that's the thing, isn't it? they are "public" buildings. in general, private property belonging to the government is not the same as private property belonging to an individual (because the government is itself an agent of the people in some sense) and buildings where the business of our collective government is conducted, even less so... you'd think. in any case, i think the issue with military bases is less that they are property and more that they are military.

but yes, any sufficiently wealthy organization can simply choose to spend its wealth on elaborate countermeasures for any problem. relying on that as the solution to all public problems is literally the same as ms antoinette's famous admonition, let them eat cake.

[mesatchornug]

Short version of my understanding is that speech remains speech until it's assault. Technically, while we disagree with both the particular speech and the way it's being delivered, it must be protected precisely because we want to be able to deliver speech with which we agree in the way we feel is appropriate. Defining speech as being protected only in certain conditions, particularly based on format, is exceedingly dangerous to the free flow of ideas.

Meanwhile, your comment on the "free-speech zones" is exactly why we should celebrate this decision. The government has admitted that they are not allowed to tell us where on public land we can/not peaceably assemble/protest. This, on balance, is a good thing.

Of course, once that speech becomes a viable threat, or transitions into physical violence, there is legal recourse. File assault charges, potentially even A&B if it gets that far. This is how our legal system is supposed to work.

[dilletante]

Meanwhile, your comment on the "free-speech zones" is exactly why we should celebrate this decision. The government has admitted that they are not allowed to tell us where on public land we can/not peaceably assemble/protest. This, on balance, is a good thing.

... to exactly the extent it's applied equally across all cases. about which, i'm skeptical, but would be happy to be shown otherwise. i'd at least like to see someone try to hold them to it.

[twoeleven]

to be completely honest, i didn't think mention the so-called free speech zones, 'cause i think they're entirely dead at this point. i can't see a lower court acting any differently than the ruling says, and i'm not sure the supremes will be able to change their collective mind fast enough even if they wanted to.

what cities are gonna do to balance the competing interests of protesters and groups wanting themselves to peaceably assemble themselves is in an interesting question.

[mesatchornug]

agreed