Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts) Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:12 PM Jun 2014

0

How is the McCullen v. Coakley case different from Hill v. Colorado?

I really don't understand this ruling vis-a-vis the colorado ruling. can someone help explain what this actually means?

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How is the McCullen v. Coakley case different from Hill v. Colorado? (Original Post) La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2014 OP

35-foot zones bad, 8-foot zones good unblock Jun 2014 #1

It's definite there can be no buffer zone greater than 8 feet. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #2

unblock

(52,163 posts)

1. 35-foot zones bad, 8-foot zones good

Reply to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:15 PM

Jun 2014

at least that's my lay read of it.

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

2. It's definite there can be no buffer zone greater than 8 feet.

Reply to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:17 PM

Jun 2014

It's murky as to what happens at 8 feet, though, as some aspects of this ruling seemingly throw out McCullen while other aspects do not.

Reply to this discussion

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How is the McCullen v. Co...