NationStates Jolt Archive

This just in:

SUPREME COURT RULES ABORTION PROTESTERS CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH VIOLENCE
UNDER FEDERAL EXTORTION LAWS

Chalk one up to the Pro-life group. Now I do not know if this is good or bad yet. Have to see what stems from it.

Great. Let's just set the stage for a pro-life version of the Seattle WTO riots, why not? :rolleyes:

*SHOCK*

You mean the SCOTUS is going to favor pro-life issues?

*SHOCK*

You mean they have ideologies driven them?

*SHOCK*

A link would be good however.....

*SHOCK*

You mean the SCOTUS is going to favor pro-life issues?

*SHOCK*

You mean they have ideologies driven them?

*SHOCK*

A link would be good however.....

Seems to me it is a free speech issue, not so much a pro-life issue. Why shouldn't those who oppose abortion be allowed to protest it without fear of criminal prosecution for doing so? If they go beyond protesting and start shooting doctors and such, throw the book at 'em, sure. But merely protesting shouldn't be a crime.

I'm not surprised. I thought the extortion statute argument was far-fetched -- not perfectly applicable to what the protesters are doing. The problem is that what they are doing is harassment and in some cases menacing but because of the context, they've been able to claim political and religious free speech protection. I think the free speech argument is specious because of the aggressive and intimidating tactics they use to deliver that speech. I think it morphs from speech into action and I don't buy the argument that action is speech. But I didn't think the extortion comparison was the right one. On the other hand, it took a pretty long time for this conclusion to be reached, so maybe the protesters shouldn't be too confident just yet.

Seems to me it is a free speech issue, not so much a pro-life issue. Why shouldn't those who oppose abortion be allowed to protest it without fear of criminal prosecution for doing so? If they go beyond protesting and start shooting doctors and such, throw the book at 'em, sure. But merely protesting shouldn't be a crime.

only liberal democrats get to block traffic with their protests! If Republicans do it it's just a case of them trying to enforce their unAmerican religion/ideology on the rest of us!

hehe

I'm not surprised. I thought the extortion statute argument was far-fetched -- not perfectly applicable to what the protesters are doing. The problem is that what they are doing is harassment and in some cases menacing but because of the context, they've been able to claim political and religious free speech protection. I think the free speech argument is specious because of the aggressive and intimidating tactics they use to deliver that speech. I think it morphs from speech into action and I don't buy the argument that action is speech. But I didn't think the extortion comparison was the right one. On the other hand, it took a pretty long time for this conclusion to be reached, so maybe the protesters shouldn't be too confident just yet.
My owning feeling is that the free speech argument is horseshit as these are mostly the same fundamentalist neanderthals who want heavy censorship and any books or films they dislike banned. If they don't feel that anybody else is entitled to free speech, why the hell should they be?

Here's an even bigger surprise.

The decision was nearly unanamous. The opinion was 8-0 and the opinion was written by Justice Breyer.

only liberal democrats get to block traffic with their protests! If Republicans do it it's just a case of them trying to enforce their unAmerican religion/ideology on the rest of us!

hehe

For once I actually agree with you! Oh, wait...

My owning feeling is that the free speech argument is horseshit as these are mostly the same fundamentalist neanderthals who want heavy censorship and any books or films they dislike banned. If they don't feel that anybody else is entitled to free speech, why the hell should they be?
I agree with you. It's just that they've had better success with that than the lawyers for the clinics were ever going to have with the extortion statute. It was the wrong tool for the job, unfortunately.

I agree with you. It's just that they've had better success with that than the lawyers for the clinics were ever going to have with the extortion statute. It was the wrong tool for the job, unfortunately.
The terrible thing is that if they'd been able to find anything better to go after these cretins with, they'd have used it.

As long as they don't get violent or damage anything then I have no problem. Also if they incite a riot I'd also have a problem.
But if they do end up hurting someone they should be charged under the hate laws. Because hate towards the people that choose that is what drives them to attack.

The terrible thing is that if they'd been able to find anything better to go after these cretins with, they'd have used it.
Oh, I don't know about that. My experience of lawyers (having worked for them) is that they will tend to throw a lot of different crap at the wall and wait to see what sticks. I'm sure they will come at this from another angle before too very long.

One of the only good things to come out of this is that Michael "Savage" Weiner has to make an adjustment on his claims of who to try using RICO. That will be a f*cking REFRESHING change. Of course, a lot to change about that pr*ck would be refreshing.

One of the only good things to come out of this is that Michael "Savage" Weiner has to make an adjustment on his claims of who to try using RICO. That will be a f*cking REFRESHING change. Of course, a lot to change about that pr*ck would be refreshing.

And you listen to him....why?

not that i know what exactly the federal extortion laws cover but i cant see how harrassing women trying to get into an abortion clinic can possibly be extortion.

what? do what i saw or youll go to hell? is that extortion?

And you listen to him....why?
Boss's favourite station. And on rare occasion, he gets something right.
Besides he's good to boil otherwise tepid blood.

This was a creative application of statutes that the SC apparently saw (unanimously) as a bit too creative.

IMMSMC the AFL-CIO filed a brief regarding this, since a similar application could have been used against other kinds of protestors, like labor unions.

Not really an abortion case per se.


Good intentions but bad law, what can you do.

This just in:

SUPREME COURT RULES ABORTION PROTESTERS CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH VIOLENCE
UNDER FEDERAL EXTORTION LAWS

Chalk one up to the Pro-life group. Now I do not know if this is good or bad yet. Have to see what stems from it.


So protesting isn't a crime? Wow that is amazing logic! :eek:

So protesting isn't a crime? Wow that is amazing logic! :eek:

For some reason, this has nothing to do with protests but how these people were going about it.