Supremes consider speech ban targeting only prolifers
Dec 16, 2017 21:19:46 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
WND EXCLUSIVE
WND EXCLUSIVE
Supremes consider speech ban targeting only prolifers
Law lets authorities punish speaker for 'intent' of message
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
The U.S. Supreme Court is being urged to hear a case against a Maine law that allows authorities to punish speech – if it’s pro-life.
The dispute stems from a noise provision the state adopted that limits “noise and violence near medical facilities.”
But the law is based on the “intent” of the speaker, meaning it discriminates according to the content of the message.
The Pacific Justice Institute explained the problem this way: “Imagine three drummers standing outside Planned Parenthood, pounding away at an equal volume for equal amounts of time – and loud enough to disturb the services inside. … One practices his skills to audition for a band. Another shouts ‘keep abortion legal!’ at the top of his lungs. The third drummer, hoping to deter abortion-minded women, repeats ‘overturn Roe v. Wade!’ in a normal conversational tone without amplification.”
Under the state law, “only the third drummer could be cited for violating the noise provision in the Maine Civil Rights Act.”
Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”
The lawsuit against the speech restriction was brought by Andrew March, a pastor whose church defends the lives of the unborn.
A number of pro-life organizations have encouraged the court to hear the case.
“For decades, it has been a central principle of First Amendment jurisprudence that the government can regulate speech neutrally to control effects like decibel levels regardless of who is speaking or what they are saying. The government’s attempts here to punish speech based on whether the speaker is supporting or opposing abortion is repugnant to free speech and must be struck down,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute.
Life Legal Defense Foundation and the Thomas More Society also joined in the filing.
The state law, unlike rules previously approved by courts, “punishes speakers based on two elements that are foreign to the time-place-manner analysis. Instead of concentrating on when, where, and how, the statute also asks why the speaker is speaking,” critics said.
“That inquiry inevitably turns on what is said – classic content discrimination.”
Attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom also argued on behalf of fair-speech rules.
“It makes no sense for the government to say that only ‘noise’ with a particular viewpoint is a problem,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Maine’s law is unconstitutional on its face because it allows officials to censor speech based on its point of view rather than any objective criteria. The U.S. Supreme Court has found – as recently as 2015 – that laws cannot preclude speech on that basis, and we hope the court will reaffirm that principle here.”
ADF earlier fought a case called Reed v. Town of Gilbert in which the high court “unanimously found that the government cannot judge speech based on its ‘function or purpose,’ as the Maine law does,” the group said.
The ADF brief explains that, in upholding Maine’s law, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concocted “a meaningless and nonsensical distinction between the purpose of a speaker and the purpose of his message.”
The PJI brief said Maine “has impermissibly reacted ‘by punishing the speaker.'”
The noise provision, it explained, “punishes speakers who speak in a traditional public forum on matters of public concern, based on an ill-defined intent to ‘interfere’ with health services.”
“If the First Amendment protects a speaker who intentionally causes severe emotional distress, then it surely protects a speaker who intends to persuade women against abortion but must speak loud enough to be heard over the noise on a busy city street.”
ADF argues the noise provision “treats these two speakers differently solely on the basis of their message.”
“A pro-abortion demonstrator, however noisy and disruptive, could not violate the statute on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, because his intent would be to promote, rather than to ‘interfere’ with, the clinic’s delivery of abortion services. But an equally noise pro-life advocate necessarily would possess the required specific intent,” ADF explained.
The brief pointed out that the circumstances would be reversed should a pro-abortion advocate appear “on the sidewalk outside of a crisis pregnancy center.”
The dispute, ADF explained, “poses a particularly serious threat to First Amendment rights because of the context from which it arose. Other states and localities will look to the Noise Provision as a blueprint for silencing disfavored speech outside of abortion clinics and elsewhere — unless this court reverses. Core First Amendment rights will be lost.”
WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
rss feed Subscribe to feed
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Email
Print Print
120221gavelconstitution
The U.S. Supreme Court is being urged to hear a case against a Maine law that allows authorities to punish speech – if it’s pro-life.
The dispute stems from a noise provision the state adopted that limits “noise and violence near medical facilities.”
But the law is based on the “intent” of the speaker, meaning it discriminates according to the content of the message.
The Pacific Justice Institute explained the problem this way: “Imagine three drummers standing outside Planned Parenthood, pounding away at an equal volume for equal amounts of time – and loud enough to disturb the services inside. … One practices his skills to audition for a band. Another shouts ‘keep abortion legal!’ at the top of his lungs. The third drummer, hoping to deter abortion-minded women, repeats ‘overturn Roe v. Wade!’ in a normal conversational tone without amplification.”
Under the state law, “only the third drummer could be cited for violating the noise provision in the Maine Civil Rights Act.”
Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”
The lawsuit against the speech restriction was brought by Andrew March, a pastor whose church defends the lives of the unborn.
A number of pro-life organizations have encouraged the court to hear the case.
“For decades, it has been a central principle of First Amendment jurisprudence that the government can regulate speech neutrally to control effects like decibel levels regardless of who is speaking or what they are saying. The government’s attempts here to punish speech based on whether the speaker is supporting or opposing abortion is repugnant to free speech and must be struck down,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute.
Life Legal Defense Foundation and the Thomas More Society also joined in the filing.
The state law, unlike rules previously approved by courts, “punishes speakers based on two elements that are foreign to the time-place-manner analysis. Instead of concentrating on when, where, and how, the statute also asks why the speaker is speaking,” critics said.
“That inquiry inevitably turns on what is said – classic content discrimination.”
Attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom also argued on behalf of fair-speech rules.
“It makes no sense for the government to say that only ‘noise’ with a particular viewpoint is a problem,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Maine’s law is unconstitutional on its face because it allows officials to censor speech based on its point of view rather than any objective criteria. The U.S. Supreme Court has found – as recently as 2015 – that laws cannot preclude speech on that basis, and we hope the court will reaffirm that principle here.”
ADF earlier fought a case called Reed v. Town of Gilbert in which the high court “unanimously found that the government cannot judge speech based on its ‘function or purpose,’ as the Maine law does,” the group said.
The ADF brief explains that, in upholding Maine’s law, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concocted “a meaningless and nonsensical distinction between the purpose of a speaker and the purpose of his message.”
The PJI brief said Maine “has impermissibly reacted ‘by punishing the speaker.'”
The noise provision, it explained, “punishes speakers who speak in a traditional public forum on matters of public concern, based on an ill-defined intent to ‘interfere’ with health services.”
“If the First Amendment protects a speaker who intentionally causes severe emotional distress, then it surely protects a speaker who intends to persuade women against abortion but must speak loud enough to be heard over the noise on a busy city street.”
ADF argues the noise provision “treats these two speakers differently solely on the basis of their message.”
“A pro-abortion demonstrator, however noisy and disruptive, could not violate the statute on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, because his intent would be to promote, rather than to ‘interfere’ with, the clinic’s delivery of abortion services. But an equally noise pro-life advocate necessarily would possess the required specific intent,” ADF explained.
The brief pointed out that the circumstances would be reversed should a pro-abortion advocate appear “on the sidewalk outside of a crisis pregnancy center.”
The dispute, ADF explained, “poses a particularly serious threat to First Amendment rights because of the context from which it arose. Other states and localities will look to the Noise Provision as a blueprint for silencing disfavored speech outside of abortion clinics and elsewhere — unless this court reverses. Core First Amendment rights will be lost.”
WND EXCLUSIVE
Supremes consider speech ban targeting only prolifers
Law lets authorities punish speaker for 'intent' of message
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
The U.S. Supreme Court is being urged to hear a case against a Maine law that allows authorities to punish speech – if it’s pro-life.
The dispute stems from a noise provision the state adopted that limits “noise and violence near medical facilities.”
But the law is based on the “intent” of the speaker, meaning it discriminates according to the content of the message.
The Pacific Justice Institute explained the problem this way: “Imagine three drummers standing outside Planned Parenthood, pounding away at an equal volume for equal amounts of time – and loud enough to disturb the services inside. … One practices his skills to audition for a band. Another shouts ‘keep abortion legal!’ at the top of his lungs. The third drummer, hoping to deter abortion-minded women, repeats ‘overturn Roe v. Wade!’ in a normal conversational tone without amplification.”
Under the state law, “only the third drummer could be cited for violating the noise provision in the Maine Civil Rights Act.”
Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”
The lawsuit against the speech restriction was brought by Andrew March, a pastor whose church defends the lives of the unborn.
A number of pro-life organizations have encouraged the court to hear the case.
“For decades, it has been a central principle of First Amendment jurisprudence that the government can regulate speech neutrally to control effects like decibel levels regardless of who is speaking or what they are saying. The government’s attempts here to punish speech based on whether the speaker is supporting or opposing abortion is repugnant to free speech and must be struck down,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute.
Life Legal Defense Foundation and the Thomas More Society also joined in the filing.
The state law, unlike rules previously approved by courts, “punishes speakers based on two elements that are foreign to the time-place-manner analysis. Instead of concentrating on when, where, and how, the statute also asks why the speaker is speaking,” critics said.
“That inquiry inevitably turns on what is said – classic content discrimination.”
Attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom also argued on behalf of fair-speech rules.
“It makes no sense for the government to say that only ‘noise’ with a particular viewpoint is a problem,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Maine’s law is unconstitutional on its face because it allows officials to censor speech based on its point of view rather than any objective criteria. The U.S. Supreme Court has found – as recently as 2015 – that laws cannot preclude speech on that basis, and we hope the court will reaffirm that principle here.”
ADF earlier fought a case called Reed v. Town of Gilbert in which the high court “unanimously found that the government cannot judge speech based on its ‘function or purpose,’ as the Maine law does,” the group said.
The ADF brief explains that, in upholding Maine’s law, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concocted “a meaningless and nonsensical distinction between the purpose of a speaker and the purpose of his message.”
The PJI brief said Maine “has impermissibly reacted ‘by punishing the speaker.'”
The noise provision, it explained, “punishes speakers who speak in a traditional public forum on matters of public concern, based on an ill-defined intent to ‘interfere’ with health services.”
“If the First Amendment protects a speaker who intentionally causes severe emotional distress, then it surely protects a speaker who intends to persuade women against abortion but must speak loud enough to be heard over the noise on a busy city street.”
ADF argues the noise provision “treats these two speakers differently solely on the basis of their message.”
“A pro-abortion demonstrator, however noisy and disruptive, could not violate the statute on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, because his intent would be to promote, rather than to ‘interfere’ with, the clinic’s delivery of abortion services. But an equally noise pro-life advocate necessarily would possess the required specific intent,” ADF explained.
The brief pointed out that the circumstances would be reversed should a pro-abortion advocate appear “on the sidewalk outside of a crisis pregnancy center.”
The dispute, ADF explained, “poses a particularly serious threat to First Amendment rights because of the context from which it arose. Other states and localities will look to the Noise Provision as a blueprint for silencing disfavored speech outside of abortion clinics and elsewhere — unless this court reverses. Core First Amendment rights will be lost.”
WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
rss feed Subscribe to feed
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print Print
120221gavelconstitution
The U.S. Supreme Court is being urged to hear a case against a Maine law that allows authorities to punish speech – if it’s pro-life.
The dispute stems from a noise provision the state adopted that limits “noise and violence near medical facilities.”
But the law is based on the “intent” of the speaker, meaning it discriminates according to the content of the message.
The Pacific Justice Institute explained the problem this way: “Imagine three drummers standing outside Planned Parenthood, pounding away at an equal volume for equal amounts of time – and loud enough to disturb the services inside. … One practices his skills to audition for a band. Another shouts ‘keep abortion legal!’ at the top of his lungs. The third drummer, hoping to deter abortion-minded women, repeats ‘overturn Roe v. Wade!’ in a normal conversational tone without amplification.”
Under the state law, “only the third drummer could be cited for violating the noise provision in the Maine Civil Rights Act.”
Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”
The lawsuit against the speech restriction was brought by Andrew March, a pastor whose church defends the lives of the unborn.
A number of pro-life organizations have encouraged the court to hear the case.
“For decades, it has been a central principle of First Amendment jurisprudence that the government can regulate speech neutrally to control effects like decibel levels regardless of who is speaking or what they are saying. The government’s attempts here to punish speech based on whether the speaker is supporting or opposing abortion is repugnant to free speech and must be struck down,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute.
Life Legal Defense Foundation and the Thomas More Society also joined in the filing.
The state law, unlike rules previously approved by courts, “punishes speakers based on two elements that are foreign to the time-place-manner analysis. Instead of concentrating on when, where, and how, the statute also asks why the speaker is speaking,” critics said.
“That inquiry inevitably turns on what is said – classic content discrimination.”
Attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom also argued on behalf of fair-speech rules.
“It makes no sense for the government to say that only ‘noise’ with a particular viewpoint is a problem,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Maine’s law is unconstitutional on its face because it allows officials to censor speech based on its point of view rather than any objective criteria. The U.S. Supreme Court has found – as recently as 2015 – that laws cannot preclude speech on that basis, and we hope the court will reaffirm that principle here.”
ADF earlier fought a case called Reed v. Town of Gilbert in which the high court “unanimously found that the government cannot judge speech based on its ‘function or purpose,’ as the Maine law does,” the group said.
The ADF brief explains that, in upholding Maine’s law, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concocted “a meaningless and nonsensical distinction between the purpose of a speaker and the purpose of his message.”
The PJI brief said Maine “has impermissibly reacted ‘by punishing the speaker.'”
The noise provision, it explained, “punishes speakers who speak in a traditional public forum on matters of public concern, based on an ill-defined intent to ‘interfere’ with health services.”
“If the First Amendment protects a speaker who intentionally causes severe emotional distress, then it surely protects a speaker who intends to persuade women against abortion but must speak loud enough to be heard over the noise on a busy city street.”
ADF argues the noise provision “treats these two speakers differently solely on the basis of their message.”
“A pro-abortion demonstrator, however noisy and disruptive, could not violate the statute on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, because his intent would be to promote, rather than to ‘interfere’ with, the clinic’s delivery of abortion services. But an equally noise pro-life advocate necessarily would possess the required specific intent,” ADF explained.
The brief pointed out that the circumstances would be reversed should a pro-abortion advocate appear “on the sidewalk outside of a crisis pregnancy center.”
The dispute, ADF explained, “poses a particularly serious threat to First Amendment rights because of the context from which it arose. Other states and localities will look to the Noise Provision as a blueprint for silencing disfavored speech outside of abortion clinics and elsewhere — unless this court reverses. Core First Amendment rights will be lost.”
Dec 16, 2017 22:35:53 #
The stupidity of politicians will never stop to amaze us. Clearly this law is a violation of right of free speech,unquestionably.
Dec 17, 2017 04:01:20 #
E wrote:
The stupidity of politicians will never stop to amaze us. Clearly this law is a violation of right of free speech,unquestionably.
Why would someone want to practice a drum in front of an abortion clinic and similarly why would someone who is pro abortion bang a drum loud enough to disrupt the services in. Weren't you the one crying about logic? So where is the logic? The law isn't aimed at pro abortion or innocent bystanders because they wouldn't intentionally try to disrupt services whereas that is exactly what the anti choice people are trying to do. You can't punish people for laws they would not intentionally break whereas you can and should punish those who intentionally try to violate our laws...
Dec 17, 2017 12:27:26 #
PeterS wrote:
Why would someone want to practice a drum in front... (show quote)
Noise is Noise. Free Speech is Free Speech. You can curtail the Noise, but not the Speech content. This is bad law gone overboard.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.