Freedom of Speech

            In the state of Massachusetts there is a law banning protestors within 35 feet of the entrance of abortion clinics.  The law was introduced after the fatal shootings of two staff members at abortion clinics in Brookline in 1994.  However, Eleanor McCullen claims the yellow line found outside some clinics to be “intimidating, frustrating and a violation of her First Amendment rights.”  (Liptak, 2014).  She continues to describe how the line prevents her from reaching women who she could help.  The state’s attorney general, Martha Coakley, claims the 35-foot buffer zone is necessary in response to an ugly history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts. McCullen claims she only has just moments to try to make contact before she has to pull back.  According to Pember and Calvert (2013), “the word speech in the First Amendment sometimes (but not always) encompasses and includes conduct, not simply what we might think of as pure speech, such as written, printed or spoken word or image.”  (p. 43).

            Based on the issue at hand, the law does violate their First Amendment rights; nowhere does it state the freedom of speech is only within a certain area or distance.  Eleanor McCullen does have a valid point about her freedom of speech and protest. Under the time, place and manner restrictions, the law must not constitute a complete ban on a kind of communication.  By banning protestors from reaching women entering the clinics, they are unable to communicate to them and offer aid.  “The government does not have the ability to decide that its public sidewalks are open for speakers on one side but not speakers on the other side,” claims Mark L Rienzi.  (Liptak, 2014).  So long as they are not preventing women from entering the clinics, but only offering aid in another form in a peaceful manner, the banning should not be held.  It is understandable to want to protect the clinics from harm, but a balance is needed in order to protect protestors First Amendment rights and the safety of patients and doctors.  “The protections of the First Amendment do not evaporate the closer one comes to an abortion clinc.  Access must be protected; so must speech.”  (Liptak, 2014)

References

Liptak, A. (2014, January 12). Where Free Speech Collides With Abortion Rights. Retrieved August 12, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/us/where-free-speech-collides-with-abortion-rights.html?_r=0

Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2013). Mass media law (18th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.