Home Uncategorized U.S. Supreme Court Again Confirms Public Sidewalks are Public Fora
formats

U.S. Supreme Court Again Confirms Public Sidewalks are Public Fora

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that restricts First Amendment activity on public sidewalks. Here is the decision in McCullen v Coakley, 12-1168. The First Circuit had upheld the law.

The decision says, “Public sidewalks occupy a special position in terms of First Amendment protection. It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas.”

6 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    Reality Check –

    More like olde local bars to get folks motivated -
    King George III Tea Tax
    1776-1860 Slavery
    Etc.

    Now it is looking at stuff on the internet – esp. horror war videos, etc.

  2. TruFoe

    Another elephant in the living room…that the bullying, religious assholes who devoted themselves to terrorizing women are merely “exchanging ideas.”

    Here’s hoping that every member of the court has a thirteen year old relative who is sometime in the near future given “God’s blessing” by being involuntarily impregnated by their own father, and that the girl receives maximum abuse from the fundamentalist shitheads who are patrolling the clinic where the girl goes to get treatment.

    Christian sharia law is just around the corner, folks.

  3. Demo Rep

    Note the comments about *efficiency* in the opinion at pages 18-19 and 28 bottom.

    How close is too close — to get a physical reaction – aka assault and battery FORCE ???

  4. Richard Winger

    The U.S. Supreme Court opinion makes it very clear that states are still free to ban intimidation. It’s a good read and not especially long.

    • TruFoe

      Just one moment while I step over this pile of elephant shit, Richard…

      …OK…there…

      So, let me be as blunt as possible so there is no mistaking my point. There are at least five justices on this court (how many Roman Catholics?) who CHEER…do you understand me?…CHEER any effort by anyone to prevent someone from getting an abortion, and when another case comes back to them challenging rewritten laws which are designed to prevent “intimidation,” they will find some other excuse to strike down those laws as well. The vote may not be 9-0, but this court as presently constituted will find a reason to allow religious fanatic stormtroopers to continue to intimidate innocent people, because their religious beliefs lead them to believe that abortion is wrong, and actions which are taken to prevent abortions are RIGHTEOUS.

      The law they struck down was written to prevent intimidation, and everyone who has seen a video of these religious zealots accusing patients of being “murderers” knows PRECISELY what their tactics represent.

    • TruFoe

      BTW…How do you feel about laws which prevent electioneering within some number of feet of a polling place? If I can cudgel within a few feet some person who is going into a clinic for a medical procedure, why can’t I shout into the ear of a voter “DON’T VOTE FOR REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>