In 2005, the city of
Pittsburgh implemented a law that allowed the municipality to ban
leafleting and other forms of free speech in the buffer zone around the
facilities of “abortionists, eye doctors, dentists, and any therapeutic,
healing, or health-building provider.” Pro-life activists, many of whom would
protest, picket, and pray in the buffer zones on the sidewalks surrounding
abortion clinics saw this as a violation of their first amendment rights and
sued in September of 2014, the year in which the mayor at the time enforced
this ordinance.
In March of 2015, the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania refused to halt the law and partially
dismissed the lawsuit. The prosecution appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, which found that the lower court had not followed the
Supreme Court precedent set by McCullen v. Coakley. However, the lower
court still upheld the ordinance, so the prosecution appealed yet again, and on
October 18th, 2019, the Third Circuit ruled that the ordinance was
unconstitutional, thus allowing peaceful protests, so long as they are
“peaceful, quiet, and conducted as one-on-one conversations.” These sidewalk
counselors will be limited to one or two on the sidewalk at a time. According
to Nikki Bruni, the lead plaintiff in the case, claims that the sidewalk
counselors are not permitted to have a physical sign, but are allowed in the
zone if “you’re reaching out to girls.”
Though not mentioned in this article, it
should be noted that protests outside Planned Parenthood clinics have gotten
violent and have resulted in those wishing to enter the clinics feeling harassed
and verbally abused by protesters. However, there were no reports in the case
that would indicate that there were any incidents in Pittsburgh.
The question is: Does the Pittsburgh ordinance
violate protester’s rights to free speech and free exercise?
I believe the answer is yes, the ordinance
does infringe upon the protester’s rights to free speech and free exercise, and
that the Third Circuit was right in ruling the ordinance unconstitutional.
First, the sidewalk and the buffer zone,
though it might be surrounding Planned Parenthood, is public property. Thus,
the government has no constitutional right to restrict free speech, including
religious speech and preaching. If it was decided that Planned Parenthood or
any other property owner also owns the sidewalk that connects to their
property, then Planned Parenthood could deny protesters themselves. But a law
that restricts people exercising their constitutional rights on public property
(provided there is no threat to safety or order) is quite clearly unconstitutional.
Second, there is no compelling government
interest in preventing protesters from voicing their opinion on public
property, provided there are threats of violence, riots, obstructing travel or
safety concerns. Presumably, this ordinance was enacted to ensure the peace in
the streets and to avoid any risk of harassment of individuals utilizing
Planned Parenthood’s services or its employees. But to preemptively deny people
their first amendment rights is unconstitutional, especially when there is no
known history of violence. There is nothing inherent to this particular Planned
Parenthood location that would make the government believe that there is more
of a risk of harassment or rioting, and thus justifying implementing preemptive
measures.
The common example of a limit to free speech
is yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. Doing this risks harm to others.
But the solution is not to ban speech in movie theaters, because it is unfair
to take away the rights of others based on a possibility of someone breaking
the law. There are laws and a legal system in place to serve justice to those
who break the law. Similarly, it is unconstitutional to ban speech to
preemptively and without credible evidence.
However, I am unsure as to
whether is ruling is entirely fair. As mentioned before, according to Bruni,
protesters are not allowed to have a sign when in the buffer zone. I assume
this is to not attract massive crowds to the buffer zone, which is understandable
in some respects, as that likely increases the risk of danger. Additionally, it
is not imperative to the protester’s religious exercise to use a sign, though
it would help spreading their message. It seems to me this is where the
compromise between free speech and safety comes into play. protesters are
allowed to communicate their message, but only without a sign and without
attracting large crowds. I think this is a reasonable compromise, but I could
see many people believing that this is too restrictive on free exercise.
Sources:
I would agree with the author's end compromise. The right to protest through free speech is inherently granted to all citizens, no matter the opinions they are expressing. Unfortunately, as the author shortly states, there has been many instances of harassment and violence by large crowds geared with signs and, in some cases, projectiles. The women receiving an abortion or any other health care assistance from Planned Parenthood should not have her rights violated by protesters. The removal of signs and any other potentially harmful memorabilia from the protests would create an environment where free speech can be expressed while the state interest of peace is maintained.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Michael's end compromise. While protesters should have the right to protest freely in accordance with their religious beliefs, I think the government has a responsibility to protect public safety above all else. I am surprised that it took so many appeals to protect the protester's free speech as I believe this is a pretty blatant freedom of expression issue. However, any indication of unruliness should lead to quick government intervention to get those causing the problems off the streets.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michael’s interpretation of the case and agree with decision that the ordinance does infringe upon the protester’s right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Using the precedent set is Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, a statute that prohibits religious solicitation is unconstitutional. This case was decided upon the fact that you have the right to unpopular beliefs, and it is not the fault of those beliefs to deal with people’s opposing reactions or feelings.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Michael's concluding opinions, I think the decision to not allow signs can become tricky when analyzing the freedom of speech. The prohibition of signs is for the safety of the people entering Planned Parenthood, however, I think one could also argue that having people protesting outside of planned parenthood is dangerous to the people entering the facility as well because of the things they could say. I personally believe that because of the uniqueness of Planned Parenthood and the incidents that have occurred in the past could render this case different from others in regard to freedom of speech because it is dealing with peoples' safety.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the law itself was a violation of the protesters'constitutional right to freedom of speech and of religious exercise, however, I do not think that the prohibition on the protests themselves did not serve any sort of national interest. I think that the banning of the protests in the first place had to have been triggered by some significant negative impact. Additionally, I do not know the details of their specific method of protests but I do know that sometimes they use very grotesque and obscene images in these types of protests. I do think it would be within the interests of US obscenity laws to prohibit these images from being on display, especially where minors can be exposed to it. I think the prohibition of signs but allowing the verbal peaceful protests was a good compromise between the two state interests.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that this compromise is sufficient. The First Amendment does not only protect religious freedom and free speech, but it also protects freedom of peaceful assembly. The protesters are not inciting violence or harm against patients of the clinic, so their speech should be protected with no restrictions. I agree with Bess's comment, as there is clearly an established precedent set for this in Cantwell v. Connecticut.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the authors argument that the ordinance does infringe upon the protester’s rights to free speech and free exercise, and that the Third Circuit was right in ruling the ordinance unconstitutional. However, yes, these protesters do have the right to free speech and due to their location, on public grounds, it is constitutional to voice their opinions. They also were not directly infringing violence to the patients of the clinic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author's arguement. The freedom of speech and right to assembly is a guaranteed right under the Constitution. I believe that speech should not be limited up until the point at which the speech starts causing physical harm. Harassment is not within the confines of free speech. These protestors should be allowed to protest, however, they should not be able to bring harmful objects or be able to address people walking into the abortion clinic. This way the state interest of peace is safe and people get to protest their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that this is one of those "hybrid cases" in which both free exercise and free speech are at stake. I agree that it is unconstitutional to prevent these protestors from sharing their beliefs outside of Planned Parenthood due to the fact that there has been no evidence of these signs disturbing peace and good order. Therefore, I disagree with the author that protestors should not be allowed to use signs, as this is an infringement on their free speech.
ReplyDelete