supreme court just ruled that anti-abortionists can blockade

[still_one]

abortion clinics

[Dinger]

1. Boy, This Shit Is Going Fast, Isn't It? (nt)

[MadHound]

2. Link? A little more detail on the case please?

I didn't know that a ruling on such a case was coming down today. All I heard about today's SC docket was that Anna Nicole Smith was going to "get her day in court":eyes:

[still_one]

4. I saw it on the bloomberg news scroll

[H2O Man]

23. The ruling

is being reported on MSNBC. They ruled that they can't be charged with violating the federal statute that some had been. Clearly, this court is going to rapidly change the laws involving abortion in the USA.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. The link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11604762/

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. Before we all go off half-cocked.

The ruling was 8-0 in favor of the "protesters."

Moreover:

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion protesters in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11604762/

[Warren Stupidity]

45. too late for that. nt.

[mattclearing]

84. That's great news for ALL protesters.

Does this effectively legalize human chain WTO protests?

Edit, nevermind, as I read the article, I see it doesn't.

[Texacrat]

75. I made this comment before on a totally different thread and I'll make it

again.

You can't attempt to defend one constitutional right by trashing another constitutional right.

[immoderate]

3. Wondering what you can legally do to someone that blocks your way.

--IMM

[acmejack]

6. Nothing they have the right of free speech to block your way.

You, on the other hand, as a abortion upon demand loving liberal have NO rights. Any questions?

[mongo]

83. If this ruling had gone the other way

Every labor union would be a "corrupt organization" and the right to strike would be outlawed. Any questions?

[acmejack]

86. Upon further reading I understand the ruling now.

At first glance it appeared to be something other than what it was. No questions, I appreciate the edification.

[MountainLaurel]

8. How about those "shoot first" laws?

Whereby if you feel physically threatened by someone you can shoot them without repercussions? It's not hard to imagine that a 105-pound woman would feel threatened by a crowd of rabid forced birthers crowding around her and screaming in her face.

:evilgrin:

[GreenPartyVoter]

70. That was my first thought too. "How will this work in Jebbie country"?

[MountainLaurel]

92. I can't wait to find out

Someone in FL might want to bring this issue up to the state version of NARAL.

:evilgrin:

[Poll_Blind]

26. The appropriate way to handle that situation is to ask what they will do..

...if you try to get past them. Whatever comes out of their mouth next is what you sue them for. They can't get around it by not answering- they will do something when you try to pass. Touching you in such a situation is definitely assault. Seriously, this happens with cops all the time. Blocking a person's way is not criminal but if the person blocking you threatens anything if you try to get where you are going they are breaking the law. Cops are fond of crowding around a suspect but they may only "block" the suspect's exit from the area if they are to place the individual under arrest.

If someone is attempting to detain you against your will you are legally entitled to defend yourself to protect your person from further detention or harm.

PB

[librechik]

51. thanks, PB--good advice n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. Which requires the facility to provide 2 escorts for the woman.

One, to physically walk he to the door, and one more to videotape he passage.

Get it on video, then sue the hell out of the protesters if they touch or threaten her.

[CTLawGuy]

82. things you might sue the protestors for

You could sue someone for false imprisonment if:

1. They act
2. with intent to confine you
3. and the act causes your confinement(length of time is immaterial)
4. without your consent
5. (in some places) you are aware of your confinement


but the problem with this case is that the woman would be required to be confined without consent. Im not sure if merely blocking your way constitutes confinement. I don't know that it doesn't, but it would take an argument.


A woman might also sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which requires

1. The protester acts in an outrageous manner
2. with the intent to cause severe emotional trauma, (of the kind that is so severe it could have physical effects)
3. and it causes that trauma

The woman would have to convince the judge that blocking her way into an abortion clinic is outrageous, which would be hard, becuase judges are reluctant to find things outrageous.

This might work considering the difficulty of the abortion situation, and the trauma of being denied the right to abortion would cause a young woman who may not be able to take care of a child.

If any protesters try to physically touch the woman, then assault and battery come into play.


The clinic might also take action. They could sue the protestors for tortious interference, which is wrongfully blocking them from doing business with their customers.

Tortious interference exists when:
1. the victim has a business and is either doing business with another or is potentially doing business with another.
2. the wrongdoer knows about this business
3. the wrongdoer intentionally acts to prevent the transaction from taking place or interferes with it.
4. it causes harm to the victim.

If protesters are phsycially blocking women from going to clinics, then clinics cannot do their business with the women. This is the protestors intent. If the woman does not get an abortion, then the clinic does not get paid and they are harmed as a result.

If any protestors step on the clinic's land then the clinic can sue for trespassing.


These are the things I can think of that people might do legally.

[mmonk]

5. So anyone can blockade a lawful establishment?

This can turn on the righties real fast if they have to go with precedent.

[Orrex]

11. What if I want to blockade the entrance to a church, for example?

More hatred and violence is born in a fundy church-o-rama than in any abortion clinic.

[xchrom]

16. ding! ding! ding!

an idea whose time has come!

[PaganPreacher]

89. Block access to a church- go to prison.

Its a Federal offense:

18 USC 247-

247. Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b) of this section—
(1) intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or
(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).


(d)(4) In any other case (the penalty shall be) a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

[demosincebirth]

24. I guess that it also means that striking workers can blockcade

their employers business.

[Marr]

30. THERE you go.

Two can play this game.

[Orangepeel]

37. Yep.

From an article linked in the LBN thread:

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion groups in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

[Lorien]

85. So can environmentalists who want to stop corporate destruction

of the wilderness.

[Burning Water]

54. NOPE!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x537809

[mtnester]

58. Why, just because someone said you could not?

The new SCOTUS decisions "opens doors" (no effing pun intended) to just this kind of action in many different types of places.

As long as bodily harm is not threatened, this door swings both ways (AGAIN, no pun intended). You can now congregate (arrgh these pun things) as a crowd, protesting, in front of anywhere as long as it is the public street, you do no physical harm.

Absolutely applies to churches, schools, businesses, epublican Headquarters, Republican conventions...oh, maybe even the dreaded free speech zones shall vanish (you know, the ones about a mile away from the actual event)

Correct me please if I am way off base here.

[Burning Water]

59. Well, we'll see

how it plays out.

[stepnw1f]

67. And The Thread Says What Exactly?

There is nothing there but speculation, not even an article or link to one?

[AllegroRondo]

7. So we can legally blockade local Repug campaign HQ?

sounds good to me.

[AngryAmish]

9. I'd rather brick up the entrance

"For the love of God, AngryAmish, for the love of God."

[Richard Steele]

18. "Yes, Poppy....for the love of GOD."

I spent a week as a bricklayers assistant once,
so if you need someone to mix yer mortar....

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. Are you providing the Cask of Amantillado?

I'll help!

[SongOfTheRayne]

72. Best story ever

I remember reading that story back in high school. It's now #1 on my list of best revenge plots ever....right next to putting anchovie paste on the intake vents of their car so that when they turn on the heater it smells like rotten fish...:)
I bet the Republicans are reading all this and using it to prove how evil we all are...

[SledDriver]

10. Can we blockade churches?

n/t

[mmonk]

13. That was one of my first thoughts

along with military bases like the School of the Americas or media studios.

[AllegroRondo]

20. SOA would be near impossible to blockade

Ft Benning is huge - you cant blocade the entire thing, and blocking streets that access it is illegal.

[xchrom]

14. ding! ding! ding!

an idea whose time has come!

[AllegroRondo]

17. Only the ones that pass out campaign literature

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. I'll help with that. nt

[merbex]

48. You can protest at churches; it was certainly done here in Boston

during the pedophile priest scandal but you can't blockade one

People still have to be able to gain access

I hate what is happenning to my country under B*

[Burning Water]

53. No

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x537809

[myrna minx]

12. So can we legally block a Walmart then?

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

27. private property laws would probably apply-

even with the abortion clinics- i doubt that the haters are allowed to blockade a clinic while on private property- they'llhave to stay on public land...and that's the problem with blockading a walmart as opposed to doing it to a clinic- the doors to the store are usually pretty deep into the walmart property the store/parking lot sits on, whereas with a clinic- it's usually a MUCH smaller area, with the front door much closer to a public sidewalk.

[Marr]

33. The entrance to the parking lot is right next to public land.

And there are alot more of us than there are of the fundamentalist crazies.

[Bill McBlueState]

15. please post a link as soon as you find one!

thanks.

[still_one]

31. I will

that is why I posted it in general discussion because it was on the news crawel on bloomberg

I have it tivo'ed

The exact quote of the news crawel is the following:

"Anti-abortion groups win at U.S. supreme court on blockade. Justices overturn order barring abortion clinic blockades"

[htuttle]

19. Wasn't that the same rulling that initially created First Amendment Zones?

Seems like they were using the same caselaw to justify both not allowing anti-abortion protestors to blockade as they were using to justify First Amendment Zones at other protests. Did they strike down the whole thing? Wasn't that original case 'Hill v. Colorado'?

[CornField]

69. That's what I was wondering

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer yet.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Do you have a link or any other information?

There are laws of dubious constitutionality that prohibit or restrict demonstrations near abortion clinics. Perhaps the use of the term 'blockade' is a bit misleading?


Free speech is always a difficult area, it is that speech we don't like, those demonstrations that we oppose, that are most in need of protection.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Ah the usual hysteria it seems.

"Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create “a freestanding physical violence offense” in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion protesters in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions."

Bad laws are bad laws.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11604762/

[still_one]

34. the exact quote from the bloomberg news crawel is

"Anti-abortion groups win at U.S. supreme court on blockade. Justices overturn order barring abortion clinic blockades"

I have it recorded on TIVO

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Bloomberg's scrawl monkey should be whipped.

See the links to the msbc article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11604762/

[bunkerbuster1]

49. Ultra-controversial decisions aren't usually 8-0.

just sayin'.

[still_one]

50. That is why I put it in general disscussion instead of breaking news

sometimes the scroll doesn't present the full implication

thank-you very much for the exact story

[Ilsa]

25. Will they push down a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage?

I wonder what women can do to get around them, especially if they are a threat? I think I might need to start making trips into Houston to help run the blockaid.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. That would be assault and battery

and in some states ironically murder.

[Poll_Blind]

28. Funny thing because that's defined as "Economic Terrorism". n/t

PB

[mtnester]

35. There is a LBN article with a Yahoo News link now..n/t

[Jim Warren]

38. Fuck 'em

Get right back in their face and show some hair. I've sought these fuckers out twice in the last year in front of a clinic and gone eyeball to eyeball with them only to let them know I'm a liberal,
proud of it and I'm ready to kick their ass if I need to. They shrivel, like all deranged bullies.

[leftchick]

39. Link..

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.


Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 decision by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_abortion_protests

[TahitiNut]

79. I wonder what this says about "First Amendment Zones"

They're part and parcel of this injunction ... an appalling perversion of 'free speech' infringement.

[Hamlette]

40. link

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-scotus-abortion-protests,0,958367.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

8-0 decision, quote: Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion protesters

don't freak out until you read what its about

[Yupster]

46. 8-0 ?

I wonder who's absent?

It's the cold anf flue season afterall.

[dysfunctional press]

55. scalito was absent.

dunno why, tho.

[NaturalHigh]

76. He hadn't been confirmed yet...

when the briefs and arguments took place.

[jsamuel]

41. note that this ruling also backs AFL-CIO unions

[superconnected]

43. One more step in the direction of raping women of their rights.

And it's also a step in the direction of raping gays, immigrants, liberals, non-christians, of theirs.

They're doing this for one reason, to force their extreme religion on us.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Read the decision.

This has nothing to do with abortion rights. Those rulings may indeed occur, but this is not one of them. See the numerous links to actual information on the decision here in this thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11604762/

[superconnected]

56. Thanks for the link!

[NaturalHigh]

78. Exactly.

If the decision had gone the other way, it would have also applied to anti-nuclear protests, anti-logging protests, anti-war protests, etc. You can't ban one kind of protest and give your blessing to another unless you ignore the Constitution.

[Yavin4]

52. You Can Protest Abortion Clinics, But You Cannot Protest Bush

Fascism is here.

[iconoclastNYC]

57. Not really an abortion case.

This was more about the righ to protest.

This law could have been used against LABOR, ANTI-WAR PROTESTORS, etc.

"Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with abortion demonstrators in arguing that lawsuits and injunctions based on the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1154AP_Scotus_Abortion_Protests.html?source=mypi

When are we going to challenge FREE SPEECH ZONES?

[leftofthedial]

61. here comes some serious violence

[leeroysphitz]

62. It's a good thing our democratic reps in D.C. did everything they

could to block the Alito nomination or- Oh wait...

[rinsd]

63. Please change your main thread headline or ask a mod to...

It's misleading and people are getting whipped into a frenzy over incorrect information.

[stepnw1f]

65. This Will Make Things Quite Violent

Boy these control freaks really are creating negativity where ever they go. And they claim to be godly? Whatever!

[genieroze]

66. What's next, they can physically detain pregnant women until they give

birth?

[Skidmore]

68. So what does this do to free-speech zones?

[stevietheman]

71. Obviously, now there will have to be counter-demonstrations to...

match the anti-abortionists. The counter-demonstrators can call themselves the "freedom bouncers"--they will bounce the anti-abortionists out of the way the same way club bouncers do it.

[rpgamerd00d]

73. Two Words : Fire. Hazard.

Buh bye!

[Texacrat]

74. I need a link

I can't comment either way until then.

[Beelzebud]

77. Get ready for more abortion clinic bombings.

I gues the supreme court has forgotten why these restrictions were put into place.

Get ready for more Christian Terrorists.

[Nikki Stone 1]

91. Or maybe they haven't

:kick:

[noonwitch]

80. Does that mean we can run them down with our cars if they won't move?

Not that I would, but that is pretty much what they ask for when they try to blockade a clinic (not just stand on the sidewalk holding signs and peacefully protesting).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Boy, it's a good thing they filibustered Roberts and Alito...oh, wait.

I forgot, they're saving it for something important.

[Nye Bevan]

87. The ruling was unanimous (nt)

[bluestateguy]

88. These clinics need armed security

I'm talking about paid goons from companies like Blackwater Security who will use the tactics that they learned in Iraq on thse "pro-life" demonstrators.

[Nikki Stone 1]

90. kick

:kick:

[Toots]

93. That throws out the "Free Speech Zones" then.

That was the original cause that gave way to the "Free Speech Zones" that Bush* uses at every occasion. He can no longer leagally do that if this is thrown out.