Unduly Aggressive?
Posted by Rev. K.H. Marple on July 10, 2009
Buffer zone for protesters upheld.
From the Boston Globe: The First US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Wednesday that the law did not infringe on the free speech rights of protesters. It said the ban, passed in 2007, responded to ‘repeated incidents involving violence and other unduly aggressive behaviors in the vicinity of reproductive healthcare facilities.’
Unduly aggressive behaviors? At a ‘reproductive’ clinic? How can something reproduce at an ABORTION CLINIC? And slaughtering unborn children isn’t aggressive behavior?
Tim Chandler who is legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund and represented the plaintiffs said antiabortion advocates “shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs. The government cannot single them out for punishment simply because they want to share their message with people entering the clinic,’’ Chandler said in a statement. “The government simply cannot create censorship zones where the First Amendment does not apply in order to silence a particular viewpoint.’’ He said the fund and its allies were evaluating the “next legal step.’’
Good point, Tim. How much more is Obama Nation going to censor us for not having the same opinion as the government? Wasn’t truth(s) supposed to be self evident?
The plaintiffs, the Appeals Court noted, argued on appeal that the law had a “content-neutral patina’’ that masked a ‘more sinister reality,’ that the Legislature’s true motive was to curb antiabortion speech.
Something stupid like this makes me want to take it a step further…what exactly can activists and protesters do in this ‘buffer zone’? I mean, can we sell stuff? Can we hold meetings? How about a pot luck lunch, would that be okay? I can be much more annoying than this, within 35 feet.
Can I get a 35 foot buffer zone from the perfume lady at the mall? Now that’s unduly aggressive.
