U.S. Supreme Court removes buffer zones from abortion clinic protestors

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: beezzer

No, protesting is not a bad thing. I think the saying "methinks thou doth protest much" applies here. We make a big stink over everything and concern ourselves with what others are doing.....and then there is someone protesting us and what we do.

If we took the time to take care of our own issues before we concerned ourselves with that of others, we may be better off.

But that could/would apply towards ANYTHING.

So protesting is okay, except when the protesters are protesting against something you believe in.

Then they are "protesting too much" and should just shut the hell up.

Freedom doesn't just apply towards things you like.

You know better than that.

a reply to: beezzer

So it is ok to repress the female and her freedoms by controlling her own body? Because that is what people want whom want abortion illegal.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: beezzer

So it is ok to repress the female and her freedoms by controlling her own body? Because that is what people want whom want abortion illegal.

I would like the law that allows people to murder unborn children abolished.

But that's not what we're arguing here.

People have the right to freely express themselves.

Or they don't.

You don't think free expression should be allowed?

a reply to: beezzer

Indeed, I do know better than that and I have no problem with people protesting something I like or agree with.

All I am saying is that it seems many people like to protest just for the sake of protesting. Someone always has an issue with how someone else lives their life, and I find it hypocritical that some of the very people that protest the decisions of others, hoot and holler when someone questions their life decisions.

Of course, we speaking on a social issues/personal level.

originally posted by: beezzer
So protesting is now a bad thing?

It's one thing to protest against government action that intrudes on our rights or privacy, etc. This has a direct effect on your life.

It's QUITE another to protest (harass, threaten, injure and kill) regular citizens who are living their lives and NOT having any effect on yours. They're just making personal choices about their OWN lives.

If people would just mind their own business, make choices for THEMSELVES and stop trying to force their personal beliefs on everyone else, this world would be a better place.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I could care less the "why" people are protesting.

My only concern is that everyone, anyone should have the right to protest.

Once we start going down the path discerning why people are protesting then we are qualifying the "protest".

I could care less if people are protesting the war, or protesting against using feta cheese in a salad bar.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

It's one thing to protest against government action that intrudes on our rights or privacy, etc. This has a direct effect on your life.

So you're "qualifying" what to or not to protest.

It's QUITE another to protest (harass, threaten, injure and kill) regular citizens who are living their lives and NOT having any effect on yours. They're just making personal choices about their OWN lives.

Protest is legal.
Harass, threaten, injure and kill are illegal.

If people would just mind their own business, make choices for THEMSELVES and stop trying to force their personal beliefs on everyone else, this world would be a better place.

That applies to practically anything.

So you're justifying an inhibition to free expression simply because you disagree with it.

a reply to: beezzer

I tend to think allowing others to infringe on another person's right to go about their personal activities unmolested is not promoting free speech. More like a free-for-all brawl.

But, if this is how it's to be, let's be sure to tear down all of the "no soliciting" and "no panhandling" signs, especially the last because the SC has already ruled money is speech so asking for it shouldn't be so bad, right?

a reply to: beezzer

Then what do you do with women whom do not want to have a child but falls pregnant and what do you do to women whom have an illegal abortion.?.
It is not murder at all. Show me a law which says it is.
You are not going to stop abortion legal or otherwise so let the women get educated and have safe facilities to help them.
You are always on about freedoms but want to repress women and their own bodies...hypocrisy nothing more.

originally posted by: beezzer
I would like the law that allows people to murder unborn children abolished.

That's a personal opinion. YOU think it's an "unborn child". YOU think it's "murder". But not everyone agrees with you. The law (Roe V Wade) actually enforces the Constitutional rights of privacy and due process.

People have the right to freely express themselves.

Or they don't.

And people have the right to privacy. Or they don't.

You don't think free expression should be allowed?

You don't think privacy should be allowed?

originally posted by: beezzer
So you're justifying an inhibition to free expression simply because you disagree with it.

No, I'm not. I don't believe in free speech zones. But when it becomes more than protesting and turns into harassment, then I do have a problem. And MANY protestors at abortion clinics qualify as harassment and molestation.

Also, if they're going to take away SOME protest zones, then they should do the same to them all.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

If people would just mind their own business, make choices for THEMSELVES and stop trying to force their personal beliefs on everyone else, this world would be a better place.

Hear. Hear. That's all I've ever wanted out of life.

No more animal rights people crowding my truck at the hunting spot. No more prohibitionists lurking outside the gun shop holding nonsensical signs about the NRA killing their kids. No more sobbing 'victims' on the TV passing blame and using guilt to pressure morons into political action. No more politicians using a batch of useful idiots to impose governments will on the nation.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: beezzer

I tend to think allowing others to infringe on another person's right to go about their personal activities unmolested is not promoting free speech. More like a free-for-all brawl.

I agree. Infringing on another's right is not okay.

But we aren't talking about infringement.

We're talking about free expression.

But, if this is how it's to be, let's be sure to tear down all of the "no soliciting" and "no panhandling" signs, especially the last because the SC has already ruled money is speech so asking for it shouldn't be so bad, right?

So you equate free expression with privacy laws?

originally posted by: boymonkey74

You are always on about freedoms but want to repress women and their own bodies...hypocrisy nothing more.

I don't care what a woman does with HER body.

It's what a person does with ANOTHER body is what I have issue with.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


You don't think privacy should be allowed?

Privacy should be allowed.

But people should be allowed to freely assemble in a public arena and express themselves as they see fit.

Unless they disagree with you, however.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Well...then no more blue laws pushed by the same people who push an anti-abortion agenda.

If they have the right to bark their views incessantly, everywhere at other's time and expense, why can't I buy alcohol when and where I please?

I think blue laws are a lot more restrictive and impact a lot more people than what the SC has concerned itself with here.

It just goes to show that the moralists pick and choose which "freedoms" are suitable to their agenda.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
So you're justifying an inhibition to free expression simply because you disagree with it.

No, I'm not. I don't believe in free speech zones. But when it becomes more than protesting and turns into harassment, then I do have a problem. And MANY protestors at abortion clinics qualify as harassment and molestation.

Harassment is illegal.
Protesting is not.

Also, if they're going to take away SOME protest zones, then they should do the same to them all.

True.

But the Supreme Court can only rule on the cases that are brought forth to it.

The lower courts can then take the Supreme Court ruling and use that as precedent for other free speech zone issues.

double post

a reply to: beezzer

I think we agree Beezzer. People should have the right to protest.....regardless of what they are protesting.

I am personally making the statement that while we have that right, some of us need to quit being hypocritical and mind our own damned business.

It's that simple.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: beezzer

I think we agree Beezzer. People should have the right to protest.....regardless of what they are protesting.

Agreed.

I am personally making the statement that while we have that right, some of us need to quit being hypocritical and mind our own damned business.

It's that simple.

Wait, what? Now you're qualifying again. I could say that anti-gun people should mind their own damned business.
I could say that Occupy should mind their own damned business.
I could say Tea Party should mind their own damned business.
I could say. . .

You get the point.