Stop Abortion Now

How far should free speech go and should there be some limitations on it? The ACLJ just gained a big victory for the freedom of speech of anti abortion protestors.  They recently sued the City of New York over a preexisting city law that stated that it is unlawful to “follow and harass” another person within fifteen feet of a “reproductive health care facility”.  The law, Administrative Code §8-803,  if broken could result in a fine of up to $1,000 and six months in jail for first-time violators. The ACLJ invoked the Supreme Court Case McCullen v. Coakley in order to support their claim that the city’s law was unconstitutional.

In this case, the ACLJ’s client, Mary Devine, participates in “sidewalk counseling” outside of an abortion clinic in the Bronx. She was told by police that she had to stay at least fifteen feet away from the clinic otherwise she would be breaking city law.  As the ACLJ pointed out, this case is very similar to McCullen v. Coakley, and in that case the Massachusetts state legislature created a 35-foot safe zone outside of abortion clinics where people, like Mary Devine, could no longer participate in their “pro-life counseling.”  In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law denied the pro-life protesters their right to engage in conversation and protest on public streets, which in turn prevented them from the exact dialogue that the First Amendment is supposed to protect. In addition, Justice Scalia noted that the blanket prohibition of speech in areas such as abortion clinics where only one type of specific politically or religiously politically charged speech is likely to occur is not content independent. The ACLJ utilized this precedent by the Supreme Court to move their own case forward. After suing the city of New York, the ACLJ received the result they desired. The City of New York amended their Administrative Code §8-803 by stating the the law “does not restrict peaceful sidewalk counseling, leafleting or other First Amendment expression within fifteen feet of an entrance to a reproductive health care facility.”  This was a victory for Mary Devine, the ACLJ and other “sidewalk counselors” in New York City.

This case addresses free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, two major components of the First Amendment.  In McCullen v. Coakley, the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment is meant to protect conversation and expression of religious ideals freely on public streets and sidewalks.  In the case of Mary Devine, the City of New York had to assess whether the ruling in McCullen v. Coakley applied to Mary Devine and the other sidewalk counselors in New York City.  I believe that the speech that the Supreme Court protected in McCullen v. Coakley is the same type of speech that should, and is, being protected in this case. I think the City of New York took the Supreme Court case a step farther and clearly identified in their interpretation of the law which types of speech are protected within fifteen feet of an abortion center.  They directly communicated this to local law enforcement.

Taking a broader look at the issue of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion and whether or not the Supreme Court ruled correctly in allowing religious groups and others to express their beliefs in a public forum, I do believe that the Court ruled correctly for the following two reasons. First, I believe that if the Court did not allow pro-lifers, many whom are pro-life based on religious beliefs, to speak their minds and communicate their beliefs, it would be prohibiting their free exercise of religion which would be unconstitutional.  Those who are going to the clinic do not have to heed the advice of the pro-life advocates, but the protesters do have the right to speak their minds and their beliefs, particularly since many of them believe it is their religious duty to do so. The second reason I believe the Court ruled correctly is because regardless of whether the message was religious or not, public debate and speech should be protected at the highest standard. The First Amendment protects all speech whether it is religious or not. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, it was ruled that despite the message delivered by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, which many believed to be hateful and inappropriate, their speed was protected by the First Amendment.  Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.” He added that “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”  I agree with Justice Roberts interpretation that just because speech can be offensive does not mean it should not be protected. By silencing a group in a public forum, the door is opened for other restrictions of free speech. Based on these reasons, I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly in the case of McCullen v. Coakley and The City of New York correctly utilized this Supreme Court precedent in clarifying their law.