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

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: intrepid

It's not about fear.

It's about the freedom of expression.

“Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.”
― Neil Gaiman

really? if I burn your house down, is that my freedom of expression?....can I stand a few feet from your front door and yell and scream at you about you being a murderer?...can I publish where your kids go to school, and your phone number on a wanted poster that reads "dead or alive"?

What do any of those have to do with the freedom to assemble?

Arson is a crime.
Trespassing on private property is a crime.
Invasion of privacy is a crime.

The ability to peacefully assemble in a public arena isn't a crime. Though it sure sounds as if you want it to be.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: jimmyx

So we should deny the ability to assemble because some protests in the past have been violent?

Do you have to be right in these women's faces to protest?

We should deny 1st Amendment rights for everyone because some chose to get violent?

Define what you think 1st Amendment rights are.

Or are you just targeting anti-abortion protesters because you disagree with them.

This pissy argument is getting old.

originally posted by: intrepid

This pissy argument is getting old.

Something we agree on.

It sure looks like some forms of protest are okay, but others are not.

I think the real issue here is whether or not people when going to a clinic for whatever reason, will be and feel safe in doing so. I've already said I'm against "Speech Zones" and in this case since it's just this one type of zone being removed while allowing the others is pure BS and blatantly Hypocritical of the Supreme Court to the point of Hubris.

But beyond that. Why is this kind of "Protesting" viewed the same as typical political Protesting when the very same actions done in a different setting would simply be considered Harassment??? I'm speaking of the screaming and name calling stuff, not an actual peaceful, semi-distanced sort of thing. I mean, a protest generally is a demonstration against some Laws or Policy or a body of government or something. This is just a protest against individual people.

It's the same out of control radical stupid actions that Animal Rights Wackos do by throwing oil on fur coats. How is that actually accomplishing anything other than violent reactions???

If someone is against Abortion, are they really accomplishing something by attacking a woman personally??? They don't seem to care either about that person or why they are there or anything. (Again, I'm talking about the radical ones, not all of them.) They just want to deny them of something that they are in no way connected to at all. In a land that holds Individual Freedom as such a valued thing I don't see the justification in it.

a reply to: beezzer

So we should deny the ability to assemble because some protests in the past have been violent?

Who's denying anybody's right to assemble ?

What part of "preventative measures" aren't you comprehending ?

Allowing opposition to stand nose to nose with one another is a recipe for disaster. Plain and simple. So instead, an easy solution is to have them perform their assemblies at a safer distance from one another. This way, everybody gets the right to stand on their soapboxes without having to worry about getting killed in the process.

That does not equate to stopping them altogether nor does that equate to removing their right to assemble. You're arguing false logics.





These types of logical fallacies seem to be quite common place on ATS:

"The government is stopping the use of styrofoam containers for take-out hamburgers.... OMG !!!! They're taking away our rights to eat a Big Mac !!!!!"

[insert facepalm here]

a reply to: mOjOm

That's my point. I still haven't gotten an answer on that. Why do the protesters have to be RIGHT IN THE FACE of these women? Does it lessen the protest that you can't get some spit on them? Or worse? I'm not getting the logic behind that.

a reply to: intrepid

Apparently, the only way to be a truly FREE AMERICAN is to be allowed to stand within arms length of your opposition so that you can toss some battery acid on them or hock out a nice green goober at them.

Any further distance than that, and "they're taking away your 1st amendment rights".

a reply to: intrepid

You know, it seems to me like there is a deliberate attempt to try and get people to fight with each other. I honestly believe there is an agenda to start a civil war of some kind by causing so much pressure within the middle and lower class that they snap and start killing each other off. It's really no different than what we see the covert arms of our military doing in other countries also. They go in and cause chaos between rival groups and sit back and enjoy the show as they support both sides and when it's all done they rearrange what's left into a system that suits them. It's like playground fights when you're a kid where there's is a crowd standing around all yelling "Fight, Fight" and every now and then someone in the crowd pushes one guy into the other if things aren't happening just to get the ball rolling.

originally posted by: CranialSponge

Allowing opposition to stand nose to nose with one another is a recipe for disaster. Plain and simple. So instead, an easy solution is to have them perform their assemblies at a safer distance from one another. This way, everybody gets the right to stand on their soapboxes without having to worry about getting killed in the process.

Free speech zones.

Okay.

Guess you're for them.

I'm not.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Aleister

Okay, so the Supremes ruled that protesters, et al, only need to be 8 feet away from the event that they are protesting. That means Westboro Baptist funeral protests won't be kept away from service family members?

Great!

Perhaps women seeking abortions should start carrying guns and employ the threat of "stand your ground" when entering the clinics.

It is a double edged sword & i agree with your second comment.

If a woman wants a abortion then she can have one, it's far better than some underground clinic like in the olden days, maybe to stop people having abortions the government should put in place restrictions, would this pacify the pro-life brigade ?

a reply to: DanaKatherineScully

.........maybe to stop people having abortions the government should put in place restrictions, would this pacify the pro-life brigade?

It would not. The goal of a "pro-lifer" is to outlaw abortion totally, and most birth control as well!

PS: Speaking of birth control, the Supreme Court ruling on the Hobby Lobby birth control case is to be announced tomorrow! Expect protests!