Buffer Zones (abortion clinics) and Anthony Scalia's opening arguments

[MrPickins]

Why should they have to be that far though? The government has no right to violate free speech like this and they have the right to be closer. What are they scared of?

Try reading the thread:

Nope don't think so, you really ought to read up on why buffer zones were created. Here is one article to help you out http://www.motherjones.com/politics...-supreme-court-massachusetts-mccullen-coakley

Still no answer for why the AZ law is fine but this one is unconstitutional?

How can I be expected to take you seriously when your view is so hypocritical?

 

[MrPickins]

Why should they have to be that far though? The government has no right to violate free speech like this and they have the right to be closer. What are they scared of?

Damn the government for stopping me from shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded theater! They're violating my right to free speech!!!

What are they scared of?!?

 

[zinfamous]

Why should they have to be that far though? The government has no right to violate free speech like this and they have the right to be closer. What are they scared of?

those rednecks have a history of being explodey around patients, the vast majority of whom are going in for a pap smear.

you should stop being an ignorant dumbfuck.

 

[HomerJS]

It's relevant since his free speech was violated as well.

The pro-life protestors have the right to protest close to the abortion clinic ESPECIALLY if it's taxpayer funded.

I will not defend the WBC or comment on them.

Hmm the right of people to assemble at a taxpayer funded site. Unless they are the New Black Panthers.

 

[Incorruptible]

Damn the government for stopping me from shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded theater! They're violating my right to free speech!!!

What are they scared of?!?

You're an idiot and that's not a real argument. A movie theater is PRIVATE PROPERTY you moron and they have the right to limit speech. Private business can limit speech since it's on their property but government can't.

Hmm the right of people to assemble at a taxpayer funded site. Unless they are the New Black Panthers.

Keep trolling.

 

[nehalem256]

Nobody is saying they cant protest. Only that they need to maintain a small buffer for the safety of the patients and employees. If you can't get your message across at 35 feet of distance, you're not trying very hard.

Come on. If the protesters want to hurt the employees and patients do you think they will be deterred by a law saying they have to be 35 feet back? Do you think there is no way they could be hurt even from 35 feet away?

Its not about safety but about protecting them from feeling uncomfortable.

 

[MrPickins]

You're an idiot and that's not a real argument. A movie theater is PRIVATE PROPERTY you moron and they have the right to limit speech. Private business can limit speech since it's on their property but government can't.

In that case, I'd imagine you'd also be charged with disorderly conduct, if not more. :hmm:

The point I was making is that there are restrictions on our freedom of speech in cases where it would infringe on the liberty of others. This is one of those cases.

35' for the mental and physical safety of these people is completely reasonable.


Still no answer for why AZ's 300' law (again, a whole order of magnitude larger than the one in MA) is just fine, but this one is not? I've answered your questions, why do you clam up on this?

 

[MrPickins]

Come on. If the protesters want to hurt the employees and patients do you think they will be deterred by a law saying they have to be 35 feet back? Do you think there is no way they could be hurt even from 35 feet away?

Its not about safety but about protecting them from feeling uncomfortable.

Why is everything all or nothing with you?

No, 35 feet wont stop a bullet, but it will stop spit, fists, feet, ect.

And, to a certain extent, it does have to do with making them feel "comfortable". I know that when I try to exercise my rights and don't feel safe from a mob of people with a history of violence who are opposed to that, I'm not very comfortable.

I'll say this one last time so it sinks in. Freedom of speech does not cover harassment.

 

[Paratus]

Why is everything all or nothing with you?

No, 35 feet wont stop a bullet, but it will stop spit, fists, feet, ect.

And, to a certain extent, it does have to do with making them feel "comfortable". I know that when I try to exercise my rights and don't feel safe from a mob of people with a history of violence who are opposed to that, I'm not very comfortable.

I'll say this one last time so it sinks in. Freedom of speech does not cover harassment.

Hmm under the law of unintended consequences, I wonder how out resident righties would feel of these women started carrying CCW if the buffers were removed.

Better yet, armed CCW in a Stand Your Ground state. I believe if they at all felt threatened they would be justified in blowing away as many protesters who rue fear harm from.

Would be a "Good Shoot!"

 

[zinfamous]

Hmm under the law of unintended consequences, I wonder how out resident righties would feel of these women started carrying CCW if the buffers were removed.

Better yet, armed CCW in a Stand Your Ground state. I believe if they at all felt threatened they would be justified in blowing away as many protesters who rue fear harm from.

Would be a "Good Shoot!"

it's a fair assessment. Anyone about to shove a pamphlet in my face would be a good shoot, knowing their history.

Pamphlet, bag of skittles, what's the difference?

:whiste:

 

[MrPickins]

Still no answer for why AZ's 300' law (again, a whole order of magnitude larger than the one in MA) is just fine, but this one is not? I've answered your questions, why do you clam up on this?

Still waiting. :whiste:

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Still waiting. :whiste:

Hope you packed a lunch.

 

[MrPickins]

Hope you packed a lunch.

Wife made chili and a pot of beans. I'm set for a while.

 

[Incorruptible]

Hope you packed a lunch.

Oh look it's the leftist scumbag. Why are you defending the WBC?

 

[MrPickins]

Oh look it's the leftist scumbag. Why are you defending the WBC?

Nobody is defending WBC, we're asking you to defend the AZ law (that doesn't just apply to the WBC).

But, you continue to avoid and deflect.

http://youtu.be/RqQn2ADZE1A?t=2m16s

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Oh look it's the leftist scumbag. Why are you defending the WBC?

See this is where your utter ignorance shines through. Please cite where I've defended them. In fact I must insist you quote my exact woods or retract your statement. I've explicitly stated I defend all manners of free speech whether I agree with them or not. I'll say this again, their message is irrelevant. That is what it means to truly defend freedom.

Now why don't you answer the question for once in your life. Why shouldn't WBC be able to be just as close in their protests as you feel anti abortion protesters should be allowed to be? If your ok with them being banned to over 300 feet away why are you attacking freedom of speech?

Edit: are you not capable of making a post without some kind of personal insult? It just highlights your lack of intellect.

 

[brycejones]

Oh look it's the leftist scumbag. Why are you defending the WBC?

Classy as always. I feel sorry for Canadians having to out up with such a rude American in their country.

 

[MrPickins]

Still no answer for why AZ's 300' law (again, a whole order of magnitude larger than the one in MA) is just fine, but this one is not? I've answered your questions, why do you clam up on this?

The longer you avoid the question, the more clear it becomes that you're just a troll...

 

[KMFJD]

Resorting to insults because you got nothing, Not surprised.

You are scum for attacking free speech. Show me one post where I hate Muslims. I attack RADICAL MUSLIMS who want sharia law.

Just STFU with your BS.