So I think the answer is no.

That said. In another thread on the subject, states have some power to create buffer zones of their own.

people to show up with semi-auto weapons on their backs on a Sunday in front of a church that supports this kind of anti-abortion protesting. Stand on the sidewalk and yell at the churchgoers as they show up for services. Carry signs with images of women who died during illegal abortions. Confront the churchgoers with loud free speech and call them names and tell them they need to abandon their beliefs and get right with atheism.

Tit for tat.

Here's what would happen: The police would come and arrest you or worse. I guarantee it.

That's how things work. It's OK to harass women seeking healthcare. Harass churchgoers who do and support that harassment, and you'll get hauled off to jail.

and frankly I doubt they would, then the arrested people should sue using today's decision and others as precedent.

I guarantee it. That's the injustice of it. And there it is.

to name one rather famous example from my own back yard. Elizabeth Edwards funeral was protested by the WBC and they were right at the sidewalk in front of said church, not one single, solitary arrest was made.

It's a church. The police would be there ASAP. And they wouldn't know about the SCOTUS ruling or really much of anything. You can carry a firearm openly into your local Target. A church is going to be treated differently, I guarantee. As far as I know, nobody's tested the idea. Perhaps they will, following this decision. We'll see.

or is on a specific list. I don't recall if churches are on that list or not. It was a recent law passed by our gop legislature. But to be fair, to my knowledge, no anti abortion protesters have carried guns up to now (at least not as a general matter or course).

You'd be carrying it on the public sidewalk outside of the church.

I don't think we have open carry here. but the legislative session still has a few days left so one never knows.

happened. You wouldn't want to violate any laws, after all. If open carry isn't legal, then it shouldn't be done.

"free speech" means the right to approach and have a conversation with a specific person who does not want to talk with you.

Shouting at me from across the street is one thing, getting close enough to touch me is different.

I would feel threatened, and, by extension, assaulted.

You show up at your doctor and have a gang of people call you names, try to hand you things you don't want, etc... Needless to say you feel self conscious enough seeing a doctor as it is. To have to go through a wave of anti-medical procedure idiots every time you want to is harassment.

There are public spaces and public officials where the court has allowed "safe zones" because of the real or perceived threat. So clearly the court recognizes not every protestor is protest is equal already.

The idea that any group of people can get between you and your doctor is harassment whether they are handing you a pamphlet or spitting in your face. The "golden wow this is great for free speech" is not very believable. The fact people were dieing is the part of the reasoning for making these laws kind of suggests these sites required special protection.

What good is a right to an abortion is you can't get one. It seems like another court decision by a court that lives in fantasy land and not the real world which needs frame work laws to protect peoples rights. Protesting a whole 35 feet a way is not a hardship. Getting shot dead going to your doctor is. If people can't see it... I don't care. I live in the real world where people are actually being harassed horribly and inhumanly just for going to a doctor. It is disgusting and not a triumph of "free" speech.

Here is how Massachusetts defines criminal harrassment:

Section 43A. (a) Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The conduct or acts described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct or acts conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device or electronic communication device including, but not limited to, any device that transfers signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications, instant messages or facsimile communications.

Nothing in the Court's decision would suggest that harassment, as defined above, is protected speech.

the victim is repeatedly harrassed, they will act. But these will be a series of one offs toward different people, and so they get away with it.

If police refuse to take harassment seriously or act on reports of it, then that's an entirely different problem that needs to be addressed.

And assault and harassment are still crimes. Did you read the decision?

clinic workers- but you know better? What is the correct term then?

Not sure what it has to do with the court decision, except they will again have more proximity to people trying to work at or visit the clinic, and probably be back in force after years of losing interest. They did not like being across the street because it was harder to intimidate people. Not as much fun for them. And laws frequently don't get enforced like they should. At best they would cajole protesters to pull back a bit, not to touch or hit anyone with their signs and posters. I am hoping NJ keeps it bigger buffer zones because all of them were there to intimidate, and no- the law does not stop them. That is a fantasy scenario.

because a one time brief encounter isn't harassment under the law.

I'm trying to remember how it worked, but we had these old people spitting in our faces and the cops pretty much did nothing.
the only time they did anything was when they followed clinic workers into their parking lot and threatened them.

this was at the clinic that led to a NJSSC decision reaffirming the buffer zone. Once they were placed across the street, they slowed down and stopped coming. They didn't enjoy it as much as getting in people's faces.

Harassment and intimidation is still a crime. SCOTUS specifically said states can enact laws to that effect. They also said states can empower police to order crowds to disperse when they are blocking entrances.

What they did not allow is a law that says everyone has to stand back 35 feet before they've even done anything. And I agree with them. The decision says states can have restrictions, but those restrictions must be specific and target issues as they occur.

face, and to create a tight gauntlet that does indeed harass the clinic goers. I feel differently about harassing individuals who are seeking health care than I do about general protesting. In practice, it is really not the same thing. They are after individuals, and not the system.

I'm wondering if this will roll back our state supreme court decison from 92. because across the street was awesome.

The SCOTUS says the states are free to set up some type of buffer zones themselves. That's not going to happen. In many states, Republicans' extreme gerrymandering has resulted in Republican legislatures in Democratic voting states...Pennsylvania, for instance. They're not going to do a damn thing about protecting womens' rights.

And use it liberally.

Stand your ground!