how to protest after mccullen v coakley
i've seen a lot of grumbling about the recent supreme court decision striking down massachusetts's law providing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. most significantly, noting that the supreme court itself has a 100-foot buffer zone in similar fashion
( Read more... )
i'd say in "in the sense that 'public buildings' are private property belong to the government". if you'd like a concrete demonstration of the legal principal, try to enter your local military base. :)
but more directly, in the sense that SCOTUS didn't merely say "this is ours and you can't have one". they tried that once with the surrounding sidewalk, but wisely didn't complain when caught at it.
as a practical matter, if planned parenthood had a building on a deep set-back with a private driveway, the problem would go away. the protesters could stand on the sidewalk all day, but nobody in the building or coming/going to it would care. obviously, the cost of buying such a lot is pretty high, but isn't that what kickstarter is for?
(i'm somewhat serious, actually: given how passionate people are about abortion rights, it wouldn't surprise me if they could raise millions of dollars that way. arguments about undue burden on women exercizing their rights under roe are the subject for another test case, but given the unanimity of the court, i wouldn't expect much.)
Reply
but that's the thing, isn't it? they are "public" buildings. in general, private property belonging to the government is not the same as private property belonging to an individual (because the government is itself an agent of the people in some sense) and buildings where the business of our collective government is conducted, even less so... you'd think. in any case, i think the issue with military bases is less that they are property and more that they are military.
but yes, any sufficiently wealthy organization can simply choose to spend its wealth on elaborate countermeasures for any problem. relying on that as the solution to all public problems is literally the same as ms antoinette's famous admonition, let them eat cake.
Reply
If pressed, I'd say it comes down to the principle the courts have laid out for freedom of speech: time, place, and manner. They'd doubtless say that the various governmental buildings are there to perform various specific public functions, and expression (or anything else) that interferes with that can be forbidden (ie, distinction by place). There are even distinctions about outdoor areas; one can't merely hold a sign with a political message and say it's an excuse to jaywalk at will. I really don't know the details, but the general idea seems reasonable to me.
relying on that as the solution to all public problems
who said anything about all public problems? as i understand the ruling, it's a problem at a specific clinic in boston. more generally, yes, private property is the general answer to wanting to be left entirely alone.
there was a protest near one of french-named company's facilities some years ago, and there was a court case about where the company's property ended and where the public right of way began. the company owns some of the land outside their fence-line, but there's also an easement along the road.
the result was rather odd, with protestors standing immediately next to the main entrance, a company guard keeping them on the right part of the grass -- somebody surveyed the easement and painted lines on the ground -- and a local cop trying to keep traffic moving while the protesters shouted slogans and tried to offer people coming and going leaflets. it was something of a circus, but AFAIK, that's what's supposed to happen.
i'm not sure what other result would be fair. we have a small front yard, but i don't think that entitles me to chase hypothetical protestors off the sidewalk, not even the missionaries i'd happily send to heaven if dïe überblönde would let me have any fun. :)
Reply
Leave a comment