Freedom Of Speech To Be Banned Near Abortion Clinics

[Magilla]

19 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

I'd like to think that as long as the message (banner) is accurate and not abusive and there is absolutely no interference when it comes to people gaining access to the clinics then I'd see that as peaceful therefore lawful.

What if it's accuracy is why it intimidates?

 

Let's say they're just whispering "shame on you" in my previous example, not even shouting (or if you prefer totally silent), the banners are just his face... it is entirely peaceful, and totally lawful...

 

...something tells me he's not going to be out there telling them he supports their right to be there.

 

Let's be clear, regardless of whether it intimidates or not... according to Chekhov there's still no problem here...

Edited December 9, 2022 by Magilla

[The_DADDY]

8 minutes ago, Magilla said:

What if it's accuracy is why it intimidates?

 

Let's say they're just whispering "shame on you" in my previous example, not even shouting (or if you prefer totally silent), the banners are just his face... it is entirely peaceful, and totally lawful...

 

...something tells me he's not going to be out there telling them he supports their right to be there.

My bold

You have to ask him. I'm not prepared to speak for someone else. 

 

Underlined 

Then I suppose it comes to the right to protest vs the right to not being upset/offended.

It's a tricky one.

[Magilla]

6 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

My bold

You have to ask him. I'm not prepared to speak for someone else. 

You just said in your view it's fine if it's lawful?

 

There's nothing stopping you imagining it's your house they're protesting outside.

 

Quote

Then I suppose it comes to the right to protest vs the right to not being upset/offended.

It's a tricky one.

Which is why the balance of a buffer zone has been struck. No right or liberty has been removed, other than the right to abuse other people masked as "free speech" (which was the intention in these abortion cases).

Edited December 9, 2022 by Magilla

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, Magilla said:

You just said in your view it's fine if it's lawful?

 

Am just pointing out why there are valid exceptions and why "lawful" can be a poor metric to judge by.

 

Which is why the balance of a buffer zone has been struck.

My bold. 

It's a poor balance in my view. 

A right to protest peacefully and I do mean Peacefully should be protected and even encouraged. 

The 'right' to intimidate, insult, abuse is non existent. That's where the police should come in and deal with the abusive ones and leave the peaceful protesters be.

Don't punish the whole because of the A holes. 

7 minutes ago, Magilla said:

You just said in your view it's fine if it's lawful?

 

Am just pointing out why there are valid exceptions and why "lawful" can be a poor metric to judge by.

 

No, I get that. Perhaps the word lawful was the wrong one but I'm sure you get my point. 

[Magilla]

10 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

It's a poor balance in my view. 

So what would your alternative be?

 

Quote

A right to protest peacefully and I do mean Peacefully should be protected and even encouraged. 

So, for whatever reason, they're protesting outside your house now, peacefully and lawfully, about you...

 

...you and your family have to walk past them every day.

 

Is it intimidating?

 

What do you do?

 

One of them screams at your kid for having a terrible father, the other 99 are silent.

 

What do you do?

 

Quote

The 'right' to intimidate, insult, abuse is non existent. That's where the police should come in and deal with the abusive ones and leave the peaceful protesters be.

If you're going to a clinic where you can only be going for the very procedure everyone outside is protesting against... it's intimidation.

 

That essentially means the police have to attend in perpetuity.

 

Quote

Don't punish the whole because of the A holes. 

If they weren't a-holes, they wouldn't be outside abortion providers at all.

 

That's not about protesting for change, it's about intimidating, shaming and scaring the individual.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Magilla

[alchemist]

17 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

No, the rights of everyone to protest where they feel it has the most effect. 

As long as they don't harass, abuse or assault anyone then I don't really see the issue. Like I said earlier, I believe it's a slippery slope.

 

But who is to say that a woman in an already fragile and emotional state will not view seeing graphic images and people "praying for her soul" as harassment or intimidation? 

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, Magilla said:

1.So what would your alternative be?

 

2 So, for whatever reason, they're protesting outside your house, peacefully and lawfully, about you...

 

3... you and your family have to walk past them every day.

 

4.What do you do?

 

5.If you're protesting outside of a clinic where you can only be going for the very procedure everyone outside is protesting against... it's intimidation.

 

6.That essentially means the police have to attend in perpetuity.

 

7.If they weren't a-holes, they wouldn't be outside abortion providers at all.

1. I've given it. Again and again.. 

2,3 and 4. That's unlikely to happen so I can't even begin to comment on that.

5. In your opinion and yes, in the opinion of some others but the right to protest is an important one and should be protected.

6. The police seem to be ok watching people glue themselves to roads and stuff. Unless these protests are happening every day and en masse then I don't see the problem. 

7. I agree. But its their right to protest and that should be protected. 

2 minutes ago, alchemist said:

But who is to say that a woman in an already fragile and emotional state will not view seeing graphic images and people "praying for her soul" as harassment or intimidation? 

I've already said. Holding up graphic images is NOT peaceful protest. 

It's intimidation and unacceptable. 

 

Really?

How many times to I have to repeat the same thing?

[alchemist]

16 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

Standing peacefully holding a banner is not harassment.

 

How can you say that a vulnerable woman will not see it that way?  Just because you, a man, not in that situation, or ever will be.  doesnt see it as harassment doesnt mean it isnt

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, alchemist said:

How can you say that a vulnerable woman will not see it that way?  Just because you, a man, not in that situation, or ever will be.  doesnt see it as harassment doesnt mean it isnt

My bold.

Oh dear 🙄

[Magilla]

15 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

1. I've given it. Again and again.. 

Doing nothing, isn't an alternative.

 

Quote

2,3 and 4. That's unlikely to happen so I can't even begin to comment on that.

It's also unlikely you're going to be going for an abortion any time soon...

 

...but surely you can use the house example to think about how you would feel if you were subject to the same, and what you would like to happen if you were?

 

Quote

5. In your opinion and yes, in the opinion of some others but the right to protest is an important one and should be protected.

No one suggests otherwise, what they're saying is that that right shouldn't be used to intimidate and abuse others, as was clearly the case here.

 

Quote

6. The police seem to be ok watching people glue themselves to roads and stuff. Unless these protests are happening every day and en masse then I don't see the problem. 

Which is sorta the point, these protests are not  about attempting to intimidate or abuse the individual...

 

...unlike those outside abortion clinics.

 

Quote

7. I agree. But its their right to protest and that should be protected. 

It has been, they can protest wherever they like, as long as it's away from right in front of the people who have to attend the place...

 

...because a protest like that would clearly be about trying to intimidate, shame and abuse those people.

 

Just like one outside your house would be!

Edited December 9, 2022 by Magilla