From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights
Organization: NCSU
Lines: 71

In article <C5MMEp.19n@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> 51 Arrested for Defying Judge's Order at Abortion Protest Rally
>> The Miami Herald, April 11, 1993
>> 
>>    Circuit Judge Robert McGregor's order prohibits anti-abortion pickets
>>    within 36 feet of the property line of Aware Woman Center for Choice.
>>    Even across the street, they may not display pictures of dead fetuses
>>    or sing or chant loud enough to be heard by patients inside the clinic.

> Several years ago, Justice William O. Douglas, who was
> about as libertarian as you can get about free-speech 
> and similar issues, wrote a majority opinion in which
> the Supreme Court turned down an appeal by a group of
> people who had been prohibited from demonstrating in
> front of their landlord's home.  

Do you have a cite for the case?  You don't give enough
information to be able to compare the two situations.
If the demonstrators had been blaring loud rock music 
into the landlord's home all day and night, then I could
see how the opinion would be justified.  But this court
order had prohibited abortion protesters from displaying
pictures of dead fetuses, which doesn't disrupt the privacy
of anyone inside the clinic.  

> He pointed out that
> people have a right to be free _from_ speech, 

Perhaps in the privacy of their homes, but not on public
property.  Did the Korean grocery store owner in New York
city have a right to be free from the speech of the protesters 
outside his store?  Patrons inside the store could hear the 
protesters asking them to re-consider shopping there -- how 
is that different from the abortion protesters asking women 
to re-consider getting an abortion at a clinic?  

> Harassment goes beyond
> expression to direct attack on particular persons,
> in this case the workers and clients at a clinic.
> Its purpose is clearly not to convey information or
> express an opinion, but to intimidate and do harm to
> other others.

Even if the protesters' speech could be considered
"harassment" (which it is not), hate speech laws have 
generally been struck down by the courts.  I don't see 
how the words ``don't kill your baby'' or ``abortion is 
murder'' could be considered harassment.

> Anti-abortionists have lost the battle for public
> opinion, and the more psychopathic among them have
> turned to harassment, arson, bombing and murder to
> carry on their war.  There is no reason not to 
> restrain them to protect the ordinary civil rights
> of everyone else.

Some of the protesters were arrested for simply praying
quietly on a public sidewalk.  Yeah, I could see how
that might be equivalent to "bombing" and "murder".
Uh huh.  Let us know when you get a grip on reality. 


> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Doug Holtsinger

