In what was labelled an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts law that created a 35 foot wide barrier around reproductive health care clinics, notably Planned Parenthood facilities. While the result was unanimous, the reasoning was not, leading to multiple opinions. The case is McCullen v Coakley.
I have a hard time understanding this case. Pro-life protesters were not being prevented from presenting their viewpoints, just not in the last 35 feet before the entrance. The court offered multiple potential alternatives that Massachusetts could create, but I have a hard time with those options. Protesters can approach people outside the 35 foot zone, can march all they want - but now they can go right up to the front door. We don't allow people to yell fire in a movie theater, we make it a crime to threaten the President, we allow enhanced punishment for hate speech - there are many limitations put on free speech. I have a hard time understanding how a 35 foot limit is a problem. And I am surprised that all nine justices agreed.
I have a hard time understanding this case. Pro-life protesters were not being prevented from presenting their viewpoints, just not in the last 35 feet before the entrance. The court offered multiple potential alternatives that Massachusetts could create, but I have a hard time with those options. Protesters can approach people outside the 35 foot zone, can march all they want - but now they can go right up to the front door. We don't allow people to yell fire in a movie theater, we make it a crime to threaten the President, we allow enhanced punishment for hate speech - there are many limitations put on free speech. I have a hard time understanding how a 35 foot limit is a problem. And I am surprised that all nine justices agreed.
No comments:
Post a Comment