日志
ZT: Latest Supreme Court Decision On Abortion and Free Speech
热度 3 |
The Last Person You See Before Getting an Abortion
The Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. It's a narrow decision that says a lot about free speech.
EMMA GREENJUN 26 2014, 1:08 PM ET
In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law that prevented anyone from standing within a 35-foot buffer zone outside of abortion clinics. The law was intended to prevent abortion opponents from blocking women's access to the facilities; local law-enforcement officials testified that significant clashes frequently occurred just outside clinics' doors.
Before this buffer zone was established in 2007, a slightly milder, fuzzier statute prohibited people from getting within six feet of someone “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling" within 18 feet of the driveways or doorways of clinics. But, as Boston Police Captain William B. Evans testified to the Massachusetts legislature in 2007, this wasn't enough: Some of these buffer zones got so crowded that they looked like "a goalie's crease." Fixed buffer zones, he said, would "make our job so much easier."
"Of course they would. But that is not enough to satisfy the First Amendment," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court. "A painted line on the sidewalk is easy to enforce, but the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency." The Court suggested a number of alternative measures that could be used by towns that frequently have to deal with intense clashes, like specifically tailored court orders.
But really, Roberts wrote, it's not clear that these kinds of clashes are actually happening. He pointed to Evans's testimony that his officers had made “no more than five or so arrests” at Boston's Planned Parenthood; even in those cases, there were no successful prosecutions. "Far from being 'widespread,' the problem appears from the record to be limited principally to the Boston clinic on Saturday mornings," the chief justice observed.
Indeed, the facts of the case suggest that something more interesting than scream-filled protests was happening at these clinics: People have been trying to persuade others to change their minds about having an abortion.
The decision described interactions between women and protesters like Eleanor McCullen, for whom the case is named, like this:
[She] will typically initiate a conversation this way: "Good morning, may I give you my literature? Is there anything I can do for you? I’m available if you have any questions." If woman seems receptive, McCullen will provide additional information. McCullen and the other petitioners consider it essential to maintain a caring demeanor, a calm tone of voice, and direct eye contact during these exchanges. Such interactions, petitioners believe, are a much more effective means of dissuading women from having abortions than confrontational methods such as shouting or brandishing signs, which in petitioners’ view tend only to antagonize their intended audience.
Justice Antonin Scalia reflected on this in a concurrence. "Is it harassment, one wonders, for Eleanor McCullen to ask a woman, quietly and politely, two times, whether she will take literature or whether she has any questions?" he asked.
Even though these direct, personal interactions may make some women uncomfortable, Scalia wrote, that's what the First Amendment is all about: allowing people to speak their mind and try to persuade others to see things the same way. This is especially true in politically charged public spaces, like the streets outside abortion clinics (emphasis added):
It blinks reality to say, as the majority does, that a blanket prohibition on the use of streets and sidewalks where speech on only one politically controversial topic is likely to occur—and where that speech can most effectively be communicated—is not content-based. Would the Court exempt from strict scrutiny a law banning access to the streets and sidewalks surrounding the site of the Republican National Convention? Or those used annually to commemorate the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery civil rights marches? Or those outside the Internal Revenue Service? Surely not.
Of course, conversations outside of abortion clinics are very different from casual chats on any other street. Even if they're polite, these interactions may still feel coercive. Getting an abortion is a big choice, freighted with emotion; it's naïve to imagine this experience as a potential exercise in sterile, civil discourse. But that doesn't make free speech any less important, the justices ruled.
As Tom Goldstein writes at SCOTUSblog, the decision in McCullen is pretty narrow—don't expect widespread changes to protections for women who want to get abortions to follow from this ruling.
The upshot of today's ruling is that an abortion clinic buffer zone is presumptively unconstitutional. Instead, a state has to more narrowly target clinic obstructions. For example, the police can tell protesters to move aside to let a woman through to the clinic. But it cannot prohibit protesters from being on the sidewalks in the first instance.
As a defense of free speech, though, this ruling is remarkable, not least because it suggests that persuasion really can work. "In unrefuted testimony," the decision reads, "petitioners say they have collectively persuaded hundreds of women to forgo abortions."
发表评论 评论 (14 个评论)
- 回复 晨枫
- 好奇：freedom of speech问题上，如果是个人对公众或者媒体发表言论，这无疑属于FOS；个人对个人，尤其是unwanted speech，如何区分FOS和harrassment？如果把abortion clinic换成社区清真寺，一群人围在门口宣传基督教，告诉他们不信神就要下地狱，这算FOS还是harrassment？
- 回复 冰蚁
- 前提是对对方尊重吧。尊严权也是基本人权，和言论自由并列。unwanted speech 在对方表现出受到 offense 的时候应该终止。你举的宗教例子也就不成立。所以呢，法官说FOS 是一回事，发生纠纷挡着不让人进去是另一回事。不能因为后者就否定前者。
晨枫: 好奇：freedom of speech问题上，如果是个人对公众或者媒体发表言论，这无疑属于FOS；个人对个人，尤其是unwanted speech，如何区分FOS和harrassment？如果把abo ...
当然警察们肯定不喜欢这个判决，始终要控制场面，加大他们工作量了。
- 回复 Dracula
- 在清真寺外的public space比如说人行道上发基督教或无神论的小册子，或者发表演讲受到保护，因为如果不喜欢的话，过往的行人不理睬，不接受小册子或者把它丢到垃圾箱里就是的了，对他们也没有什么妨碍。但是别人不感兴趣，却还喋喋不休，追出很远的话，应该就是骚扰。你提到的围在门口，如果对别人的进出形成障碍的话，也是骚扰。这个标准是“[t]he First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech.”
晨枫: 好奇：freedom of speech问题上，如果是个人对公众或者媒体发表言论，这无疑属于FOS；个人对个人，尤其是unwanted speech，如何区分FOS和harrassment？如果把abo ...
我写的一个帖子里提到的Snyder v. Phelps 那个案子就是关于offensive speech。那个教会的言论绝大多数的美国人都觉得太出格了。但他们是在public space游行，也没有干扰葬礼的举行，最高法院还是以8比1认为他们的言论也受到保护。
http://www.aswetalk.org/bbs/thread-30376-1-1.html
- 回复 晨枫
- 这样说来，pro-rights的人也有尊严权，与教会例子没有本质不同啊。
冰蚁: 前提是对对方尊重吧。尊严权也是基本人权，和言论自由并列。unwanted speech 在对方表现出受到 offense 的时候应该终止。你举的宗教例子也就不成立。所以呢，法 ...
- 回复 Dracula
- 如果清真寺的楼是教会所有的话，门口应该不是public space，可以在外面的人行道上游行。最高法院的标准是“[t]he First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech.” 最高法院判决，如果在别人家外面的人行道上一天到晚24小时不停的游行抗议的话可以算违反了这个标准，清真寺我觉得不算，但是好像也没有这样的案例。
晨枫: 如果用abortion clinic同样的设定：在清真寺门口，但依然留出通道；对每一个进出的人都喋喋不休一番，反复如此。这算是FOS还是骚扰呢？ ...
- 回复 冰蚁
- 按文中举例，
晨枫: 这样说来，pro-rights的人也有尊严权，与教会例子没有本质不同啊。
[She] will typically initiate a conversation this way: "Good morning, may I give you my literature? Is there anything I can do for you? I’m available if you have any questions." If woman seems receptive, McCullen will provide additional information.
这和你说的喋喋不休是不一样的。
- 回复 晨枫
- 我不是在特指她的情况，而是一般泛指：如果在abortion clinic外不顾别人的反感，喋喋不休地劝人，在紧贴prive space的public space，这算骚扰吗？如果对方明确表示不想听“你”的，“你”继续劝说，这算骚扰吗？pro-choice的人有义务每次都澄清不想听pro-life的宣传以保证pro-life的人的FOS吗？还是pro-life的人有义务每次征询而保证pro-choice的人的尊重权？
冰蚁: 按文中举例，
[She] will typically initiate a conversation this way: "Good morning, may I give you my literature? Is there anything I can do for ...
- 回复 晨枫
- 确实没有听说过这样的案例，所以这是纯假设性的。不过objectionable的标准是什么呢？
Dracula: 如果清真寺的楼是教会所有的话，门口应该不是public space，可以在外面的人行道上游行。最高法院的标准是“[t]he First Amendment permits the government to pr ...
- 回复 冰蚁
- 这个东西吧，叫一码是一码，要分开来看，别老想着综合在一起看就看清楚了。你言论自由了吧，那我诊所边上来个不准大声喧哗的规定呢？实际中不见得有这个规定，但就这个意思。界限分清了，了了分明了，那冲突就会少下来。
晨枫: 这样说来，pro-rights的人也有尊严权，与教会例子没有本质不同啊。
- 回复 Dracula
- 那个案子是Frisby v Schultz。你可以看一下Wikipedia的介绍
晨枫: 确实没有听说过这样的案例，所以这是纯假设性的。不过objectionable的标准是什么呢？
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisby_v._Schultz
我引的那句话的关键词是captive而不是objectionable。你上面说的对方明确表示不想听，却继续劝说，肯定算骚扰。只是在清真寺外游行的话，我觉得不算。
- 回复 冰蚁
- 除非示威抗议，一般劝人的这种，包括布道，至少要征询一下对方意见。你不理就可以了。流产诊所门口的抗议我也见过。就一些人举着牌子站着，基本也不说话。有人去会有人说上两句，不理就行了。这个不是你平时看到的动乱地方的示威游行。
晨枫: 我不是在特指她的情况，而是一般泛指：如果在abortion clinic外不顾别人的反感，喋喋不休地劝人，在紧贴prive space的public space，这算骚扰吗？如果对方明确表 ...
- 回复 冰蚁
- 曾经有人去我家布道，拉人入教。当然都是显得彬彬有礼。我老婆开的门。聊了两句，我老婆胡诌说我们信佛教。人家立马就告辞了。
晨枫: 我不是在特指她的情况，而是一般泛指：如果在abortion clinic外不顾别人的反感，喋喋不休地劝人，在紧贴prive space的public space，这算骚扰吗？如果对方明确表 ...
- 回复 晨枫
- 同意：captive是关键词。
Dracula: 那个案子是Frisby v Schultz。你可以看一下Wikipedia的介绍
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisby_v._Schultz
我引的那句话的关键词是captive而不是objectiona ...