re: #4 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Again, I think this was the right ruling. The article itself shows why: The thirty-five foot buffer zone was not enough, either. There is no law that is going to address or fix the problem of people hating women for getting abortions. Our entire culture tells women who are getting abortions that they are at best sad fuckups, at worst evil child-killers. The protesters are a symptom of a much larger problem, and providing buffer zones while closing down clinics isn’t going to help much.

I’d much rather we enforce the actual law, whatever it is, against the protesters who routinely violate it. No matter how permissive the law is, the protestors always step over it.

The difficulty that I have with this SCOTUS ruling is that I fail to see how getting in someone’s face about their personal decisions can be protected speech under the first amendment. The first amendment protects freedom of expression, especially from government control. Where in that concept is the notion that the protestor is entitled to get into the face of a private citizen dealing with personal medical issues?

That said, your point about enforcing existing anti-harassment laws etc. against the protestors would make a bigger difference in practice than any theorizing about the first amendment.