And random strangers on a public sidewalk absolutely do have the First Amendment right to speak and "interrupt your thoughts".

If they speak as I go by and I ignore them and they don't follow me and don't shout at me, then I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, that is not what happens at clinics, where an arriving patient is generally already not at their most resilient. When I'm walking past these yahoos on my way to catch a train, I could really give a f*ck if they say something to me, or if they hold up some offensive sign. They're just assholes and I don't need to deal with them. But a patient at a medical facility is a completely different situation.

And, if they are standing on the sidewalk to do this, they are probably obstructing the sidewalk for someone. Since a standard sidewalk width is just about enough to accommodate a wheelchair.

In practice, I fear that this ruling will give the wackos license to follow women around and generally interfere with them.

People (private citizens) getting medical treatment or burying a loved one are entitled to protection from harassment.

What criteria should be used?

I didn't follow the arguments of the case and I wonder if this was argued coherently.

1) A medical patient is in a vulnerable state.

2) There is a history of violence at medical clinics.

Therefore, there is a need to protect the patients in this specific situation.

Similar to porn and "yelling fire in a crowded theater", the right to free speech or free assembly is not all-encompassing.

So it can not be applied.

Whatever it is, I never called it free speech.

'Free speech' does not guarantee you the right to be listened to. Only to speak.

If SCOTUS made the right decision, they should eliminate their own 100 ft buffer zone.

and if the 100ft buffer seems illegal now, sue the Court.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty much all Federal buildings now have a buffer zone to prevent a car bomb getting to close, this is in response to what happened at the Murrah building in OK.

that closely, but unless I've been misled, that 100 ft buffer zone extends to protesters on foot.

I found this article which says that a Federal judge struck down the exclusion zone, don't know if it applies to the 100' zone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-tosses-out-law-banning-protests-on-supreme-court-plaza/2013/06/12/b0dec308-d392-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

I have a very careful interpretation of "free speech" because I see how it has been misused by others.

At its most basic and most essential, freedom of speech is the freedom to NOT be thrown in jail for what you SAY. It has nothing to do with being penalized for what you DO. If I'm at a party and say awful things about Dick Cheney or Barack Obama, I'm not going to have the police at my door the next day to take me away and lock me up for 10 years. In this country. In some other countries, saying the wrong thing in public about the country's leadership could have EXACTLY that result, and HAS had that result for many people.

THAT is what freedom of speech means.

I don't recall the details of the incident in the photo (I'm getting old) but I strongly suspect I wouldn't have cast it under free speech.

Embarrassed, maybe, but that's because the phrase "war criminal" is perfectly accurate.

So I too question the comparison.

The protestor (and her companions) in the photo was arrested:

...and I did not have a problem with that.

What's your point again?

I think the answer to the second is "no" or should be.

As I clarified in another reply, sure they can speak, but not demand my acknowledgement. They can speak but not "to" me, in the sense that I do not have to acknowledge that they are speaking to me.

Also, they should not be stepping in front of me and impeding my path, they should not touch my arm, they should not continue to follow me if I ignore them. I do not believe that any of those actions should be protected by law, in any situation. Whether it be an abortion clinic or someone trying to sign me up for Greenpeace.

On your own private property you yourself can set the rules as to who may get in your face but not in public areas.

Or, some people's interpretation / abuse of it.

No one should be getting in anyone's face for any reason, be it a conservative cause, religious proselytizing, or a liberal cause. (The exception I mentioned, of course, being an immediate safety concern.)

IANAL and can't argue it constitutionally, but I sure as hell can argue that it's really bad manners and not good for society.

In case you are not aware of them, the Capital Singers have gone into the Wisconsin Capital almost everyday since Act 10 was put in place by Walker. (ACT 10 being the anti -union law that caused all the protests), every day they stand in the Rotunda and sing loudly, "interrupting" other visitors to the Capital. Many have complained that they were rude, stood their ground, and "ruined" the trip to the Capital. The Capital Singers, on the other hand have claimed 1st Amendment rights, and so far prevailed. Even though many on the other side would love to go see their State Capital unfettered by the singers protest of Walker.

They could make the exact same claims the op does. Do they have the "right" to a dignified visit, without harassment to the Capital Building?

I think a lot depends on the details. If they aren't physically blocking paths; if they aren't calling out individual members of the public walking by and trying to interact with a person after the person indicates they aren't interested, then it's probably not the same thing that I was referring to.

The Capital is a political place, so people should probably expect political demonstrations there. If they were standing on the sidewalk at a random location in the city, every day, impeding and/or harassing passersby, it would be a whole different issue.

in certain circumstances.

From what I have read about the decision, they left the door open for more narrowly defined buffer zones. My own theory is that there is a need to justify the restriction on "free speech" freedom to harass, and that it must be "temporary" (meaning the need for the zone must be reviewed periodically). I think given the history of violence against clinics and the vulnerable state of patients, that should be doable with regard to reproductive clinics.

I guess I am only lamenting that we don't have the common courtesy in this country that would make this whole thing unnecessary.

and going to the Dentist. That protester, who patted my daughter on the head, had no right to do that. Physically touch a child without the parent's permission? As I said, SHE protested against that. Back off, Mister, get the hint, and go away.

My other confrontation was with the protester, who was not only in my face, but when I tried to move, he blocked me by putting his body directly in front of me as I tried to get away from him. You have the right to free movement on a public street. Nobody can physically restrain you with their body to keep you from moving. That is what that man was doing to me. Trying to prevent me from going into that building. I am not an attorney but I think that might be considered Unlawful Imprisonment?

What is to prevent these protesters from standing at the door entrances and physically stopping women from entering the building? They did used to do this; as that man years ago tried to do to me. Yes, all this is still illegal, but ending these buffer zones only gives them the opportunity to try to circumvent these other laws.

As I understand it, the state of Massachusetts just has to re-write its current law.

A new law would have to reduce the size of the zone.

It was the combination of the size of the buffer zone with the nature of the prohibitions.

The Supreme Court pointed toward a Federal law and some specific laws of other states and municipalities as examples that Massachusetts could model a solution after. Those other laws all have significantly different (lesser) prohibitions than the Massachusetts law did, which prohibited all speech within the buffer zone.

So it seems unlikely that Massachusetts would try to keep their same law by changing to a smaller perimeter than 35 feet. They will likely need to try something more substantially different to pass muster.

The government has no duty to keep you unbothered, and it has no power to restrict the speech of others in furtherance of that goal.

But anyway, the government does have power to restrict the physical actions of those involved.

Freedom of speech pertains to speech, not actions. If someone steps in front of me to intentionally impede my progress, that is an action. If someone yells at me and I don't respond and they grab my arm, that's assault.

A person has a right to speak. They do not have any "right" for another person to acknowledge their speech.

The asshole yelling at your face may be pursuing his own happiness.

Regarding the rest of your reply, what decision has held that grabbing you is speech, rather than assault?

That seems to be a straw man of your own making.

You have every right to hand out pamphlets and literature. You have every right to approach someone on the street and ask them to vote for your candidate.

Have you ever canvassed during an election? That could legally be banned if the First Amendment did not protect speaking to anyone.

Imagine if you were banned from speaking to anyone on the street about the war. Or the environment. Or just about any subject. Remember "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine? That was handed out in the streets. Pre-Constitution, yes, but that sort of thing was exactly what was on everyone's minds when the Constitution was written.

Now of course, you also have the right to ignore anyone on the street and they obviously can't harass you, chase you, etc. But thankfully the Supreme Court affirmed the power of states to enact restrictions -- they just have to be targeted at specific problems, not just a blanket restriction on everyone before they've even done anything.

or standing in the middle of the sidewalk forcing people to alter their path to go around you.

I don't have much problem with people handing out literature as long as they are reasonable about not shoving it in my face or pursuing me when I indicate lack of interest. That's all fine.

That's NOT what happens at reproductive care clinics.

I feel like people are missing the essence of what I was trying to raise for discussion. That's probably my fault for the way I worded the headline. But regardless of the technical legality, I don't feel that people have a "right" to get in my face as I am going about my business in public, for whatever cause. The interesting consequence of my post here is that I am seeing, as I suspected, a couple people whose posts sound like they are a-ok with the tactics of abortion protesters. It's a common courtesy thing for one, but also, at some point I have as much right to my personal space as you do to your political speech. In my opinion. I am not claiming that my opinion is supported by constitutional law.

Thomas Paine: different technological era. Communication pretty much only happened face to face or by printing press and distribution of the printed matter. There are many more ways to communicate now.

The problem with NOT having a buffer zone is that it then is much easier for protesters to avoid detection of their illegal behavior. All they have to do is know when the cops are there and "behave", then as soon as the cops go away they go back to their harassment and abuse. That said, I think MA will easily be able to craft a law that fits with the SC ruling, given the history of clinic violence. There is obviously a specific problem here to be addressed.

Words and body language in a person's face can be
very abusive and violent.

That is NOT free speech.

It's nice to know someone else sees it.

They have the right to yell their views at you in public. You have the right to shout back or walk away. And they then have the right to keep shouting, even if you're walking into a building.

And rightly so.

So, funny that "right" isn't unlimited.

If they shout something that sounds (to me) like a threat and I am in fear of my life and I shoot them, I guess I can claim "stand my ground". If I'm in Florida, anyway. Or not? (Depends if my name is Zimmerman, and/or the color of the person I shoot?)

Laws are funny things. They apply one way sometimes, different ways other times.

Anyway, to the extent you're correct about the law, that may be "right" for the law to be that way, but that doesn't make the person behaving that way any less of an asshole. It seems that being an asshole in this way is ok in segments of the left as well as the whacko-right. Sigh.

I can joke about airplane bombs outside an airport but not inside. That's nothing we don't already know.

What we do know is that if you're walking into a building, they can most certainly gather and shout at you. And that is why the decision was unanimous.

My right to free speech doesn't include passing confidential information to North Korea, either.

But in a public place, I have the right to say what I want to say, as long as I'm not preventing people from going about their business. If the clinic protesters block the sidewalk, then they'll be arrested, but not for their speech but their actions.

If pro-choice protestors went to the churches that promote the harassment at women's health clinic and protested just as loudly and aggressively, why should they be treated any differently? Use the same tactics - impede access, scream alternate points of view, try to force literature on people, accuse people of supporting pedophiles*, etc. I wonder if they would be allowed as much leeway as the anti-choice whackos?

I think it's time to test this.

*As for whether or not people are pedophiles, hey, the anti-choice whackos accuse women of all kinds of things for which they have no evidence. It is FACT that Roman Catholic priests have been convicted of pedophilia and that the church has actively covered up their crimes and impeded investigations. So accusing Roman Catholics who still support the church of supporting pedophilia is legitimate.

want to be interfered with? Why don't those laws pertain to women who seek medical care at a clinic that also performs abortions?

It's probably hard to prove harassment unless the cop is standing right there. And most communities probably can't afford to station a cop at a clinic all the time. And why should my tax dollars have to go to that? And why should the clinic have to hire additional security staff to protect patients from assholes? *

With a buffer zone, it makes it easy to see and very clear-cut when the law is being violated.

* Why do people have to be assholes in the first place? And do they / should they have the right to be an asshole to another person in a public place? This is where I ended up ... it is not only people trying to go into a Planned Parenthood clinic, the problem occurs with nutjob religious and political jerks screwing with people trying to go about their business downtown .... this has happened to me ... it just isn't as universal, consistent, and threatening as the clinic protests have been, so it isn't really talked about, just mostly tolerated. (Except I read about a recent case in Philadelphia with a radical Muslim group that was royally pissing off the businesses it was obstructing downtown ... not sure where that one ended up.)

I'll answer for ya: Hurr durr saving babies from being killed by harlots and bringing people to JESUS! Hurr durr

"In the past 40 years, abortion providers have seen eight murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 181 acts of arson, 399 invasions, almost 1,500 acts of vandalism, and almost 2,500 acts of trespassing, four kidnappings and 550 acts of stalking."

Like our countries tolerance of 30,000 plus deaths per year by firearms, it amazes me how Institutions like the Supreme Court are willing and deliberate in their determination to put even more people in harms way. Based on their recent ruling, how can there be any other outcome but more numbers added to the grim statistics above?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5161538

It's amazing how parliamentary political gamesmanship has taken away a woman's basic rights to health. It breaks my heart for the women of Texas and the many health care options like family planning and breast cancer screening was taken away with the closure of perhaps 90% of the clinics in the state. They are being denied basic health care in addition to access to abortion!

-90% Jimmy

I'll fix the grammar later

do they actually have the "right" to free speech?

The problem is two separate issues.

-people do have the right to speak in public even if their speech is hateful and/or the audience would rather not hear them.

-people have a right to go about their business without undo interference.

To protect people from abuses of free speech, most areas have laws such as menacing or intimidation to keep the speech from being threatening. These laws should be enforced.

Also it could be argued that though people have the right to peaceably assemble, if they are assembling for the purpose of intimidating others and interfering with their business it is no longer a peaceable assembly and should be disbursed.

I a perfect world law enforcement would put bias aside and enforce such laws justly; unfortunately our world is far from perfect

No one is going into a planned parenthood clinic to have or listen to a debate. They are there for medical care, not even necessarily an abortion.

My hope is he suffers a massive heart attack or stroke. And while being transported, is blocked by abortion protesters. And only his lapdog Clarence is there to give him mouth to mouth.

able to protest and speak our peace there and they are not forced to engage and can go on to their "work".

I'm sure the board of directors of Aetna and Cigna is spoiling for Political discourse but I strongly believe in being able to bring it to them.

Many had ZERO interest in Martin Luther King's message and less interest in engaging him, they were just trying to go about their business and be left alone, right?

Really believing in free speech is fucking hard, it requires of you to accept what is repellent, to suck up deep offense, to give up the bubble of the peace of your own thoughts, and in the extreme be as willing to protect the vile as you are the good.

It must be this way because it is neigh on to impossible to in an intellectually honest manner to protect the good in a way that limits the other.

That doesn't mean that saying fucked up shit has no consequences, that is a separate issue because what we are talking about here is government sanctions and protections.
This is why I argue it is an individual civic responsibility to nullify if you are on a hypothetical jury on a case were a grieving person fucks up or even kills a Westboro clown one of these days at a funeral. Now, if these people enter someone's personal space or obstruct them then there can be laws to react and the person accosted has latitude to defend themselves and nullification should be employed when we see a fucker going as close as they can and someone responds but I don't see how we navigate a logically consistent way to avoid this kind of situation and not fashion a noose for ourselves someday.

I don't see how you set limits on speech that cannot be exploited to silence what needs to be said.

I believe all of these protest zones and similar tactics, even really hate speech laws are unconstitutional and should and must be swept away, sometimes the motives and rationales are good and reasonable but then the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

It's really that simple.

If you make medical facilities exempt from free speech then anyone who wants a bubble has a clinic on site at best and if you define it poorly Humana is exempt at worst.

What goes on between you and your doctor is private and privileged but how do you extend this to the street?

The First Amendment doesn't provide a right of "speaking to"; it provides a right of "speaking about". I.e. it means free subject matter, not enforced audience.

Blocking the path, yes they do have to the right to speak, yell, protest, pas out papers, hold signs. The first amendment is very clear, thus the 9-0 decision. I trust the judgement and wisdom of the progressive justices.

They have a right to speak, but people have the right to speak back at them or over them. Standing up to them is the most likely answer. And have counterprotestors around to help.

interpretations of the right to free speech as there are people who give a damn, but unfortunately the only interpretation that matters is that of the courts over time and ultimately the SCOTUS. The idea of free speech has been twisted into a device for uncivilized anger mismanagement rather than the premise for civilized information dissemination without government interference for governmental or political control. It's been a long journey from the need to protect the rights of citizens to have a free voice in government with the right to worship as they choose, to become what is now the right to verbal and psychological abuse that teeters on physical assault only by lack of law enforcement. Ironically, most of this abuse comes from the very ideologies that free speech was meant to protect.

The evolving courts have slowly eroded the right to free speech to its present form where it has become the right to inflict pain through speech and the right to inflict unwanted intrusion without consequence, the weakest be damned.

The courts have created a monster that destroys civil discourse in the name of harassment. In doing so we have a decline of reason in America that may just be what modern courts and corporate power miners have wanted all along: a destabilized citizenry that advances greed and sociopathic behavior opening the door back into government and corporate control.

The whole idea of free speech is completely whacked, and as far as I'm concerned has no reasonable definition. If we can't advance a cause in public without causing harm or offer it with reasonable human respect, that cause should be kept as far away as possible to protect the public. Put the impetus for advancing that cause on the speakers to do so in a civil, intelligent manner.

Anything else is just a street brawl. Might as well use clubs, although I'm sure the entertainment crowd would be agog by such an idea.

is for clinics offering abortion services to relocate to suburban areas, fence the grounds, admittance to people with appointments only. So far as I'm aware private property rights trump anyone's First Amendment rights; you may have the right to accost me on the street, but not in my front yard (that constitutes trespassing).

they could just line up in a row.

This ruling promotes stress in everyday peoples lives at their most vulnerable saying screaming in peoples faces is free speech.

It keeps us turned against one another rather than taking our anger and frustrations out the people who deserve it, our politicians and the circus that surrounds them.

Nobody got anywhere near the GOP convention that was here and the whole damn military-local govt law enforcement-Homeland was here to make sure they didn't. Criminalizing the attempt.

Imagine that, people cannot tell their politicians what they think to their face. Makes the absurdity of our country come front and center. They literally had 10 mile "buffer zones" and arrested some people for thinking about protesting.

This is the way I've worked to register voters. I ask (generally)
"Are you a registered voter?"
"Would you like to register to vote?"
"Has your name or address changed since you last voted?"
"Has your signature changed since you last voted?" (Yes, that matters too!)

I have had a few tell me they were convicted felons and I directed them on how to have their rights restored.

Of course if they are not interested I thank them and move on and I would never block anybody's movement away from me.