It sounds like you’re saying they need a buffer zone around them to recent harassment but unfortunately the people who need those buffer zones have ruled that sidewalks are a public thoroughfare and it is unconstitutional to prevent free speech on them. I assumed you were an originalist who agreed with them.
I’m not saying anything. I just enjoy the indignation from progressives when a senator is harassed in the bathroom but don’t give a damn when a Supreme Court justice can’t eat at a private restaurant and the result is cheering.
It was Progressives who were harassing Sinema in the bathroom.
But anyway… Kavenaugh by all accounts had no idea that there was a protest going on but did leave out the back with his security detail
What I find more troubling is the anonymous actions taken against Morton’s from people continuing to harass them for serving Kavenaugh. That to me is troubling… the same happened to the Red Hen in the Sanders case but from the other side.
And yes… I see the irony that everyone sees that the Supreme Court for years has been whittling away at the rights to privacy by allowing for protestors at abortion providers and has rejected a Constitutional basis for the right to privacy… but you see… I think that those decisions were wrong and people should let others go peaceably about their business when it doesn’t affect them… but that isn’t what we have.
Except for the need to know what firearms I own and/or want to buy. That’s a national emergency and I need to be on a registry. That’s what we have. Can’t touch abortions… firearms are fair game though, right?
Didn’t the CA AG office just release gun information on everyone in the state?
Maybe SCOTUS can find a case with which they can revisit their 2014 ruling which said that protesting in the street is a traditional method of transmitting ideas and thus protected by the 1st amendment.
The court objected to the notion of buffer zones in part because such broad perimeters “burden more speech than necessary” by excluding “petitioners” (“not just protesters”) from public sidewalks, streets, and other public thoroughfares, “places that have traditionally been open for speech activities and that the Court has accordingly labeled ‘traditional public fora.’”
Buffers zones deprive petitioners “of their two primary methods of communicating with arriving patients: close, personal conversations and distribution of literature. Those forms of expression have historically been closely associated with the transmission of ideas,” the court wrote.