And now the Supreme Court pisses me off
Okay, Supremes, though I strongly support the Massachusetts law that provided a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, I can at least understand your free-speech argument in striking down that law: People have long gathered on public streets and sidewalks for discussions and protests, so this Massachusetts law went too far in stopping such gatherings. I don't like this decision, as I said, but as a free-speech advocate, I can at least understand the basis of your reasoning.
Except.
Except that you've established other types of buffer zones to protect people.
Except that you don't apply it to the equally public property around your own building. You get to have a safety zone, a buffer zone, on which no one can protest.
That's bullshit. Afford the same protection from protest to others that you afford to yourself, or open your own area to protest.
Be consistent.
Supremes, this time you let us all down.
For much more on this, check out the Rachel Maddow show below bit on this topic.
Posts
2 comments:
Like your two posts about the latest Supreme Court decisions. If there are buffers to protect folks from harm in some places, all places that could use a buffer of protection should have them. People can still express opinions, but those going to the places that need protection can also have less fear of being grabbed, yelled at, and otherwise harassed at what is already a difficult time.
Thanks. I think the Supreme Court should at least be consistent in these rulings.
Post a Comment