Free speech not only right

THE Supreme Court faced the challenging task of weighing one person’s right to free speech against another’s right to be protected from harassment when it reviewed a Massachusetts law requiring 10m buffer zones around abortion clinics. Unfortunately, the court got the balance wrong when it voted to strike down the law.

As important as the First Amendment is, courts have long recognised that it may be restricted, within limits.

The Massachusetts buffer zones were established by the state legislature after years of violence and intimidation by abortion opponents. Among those who may not enter are protesters who want to wave signs, shout slogans or engage with those visiting the clinics.

There’s no question this law restricted First Amendment rights by curtailing the movement of abortion opponents. In our view, that was justified by the need to protect women exercising their constitutional right to an abortion. The court, however, concluded that the buffer zones “burden substantially more speech than necessary” to achieve their goal and the state failed to try “less intrusive” means to achieve its ends. As a result of the law, it said, the plaintiffs were unable to conduct “personal, caring, consensual” conversations about alternatives to abortion with women entering the clinics.

Well, sure, there may be plenty of calm, soft-spoken opponents of abortion. But there are also violent and confrontational ones. The fatal shooting of two clinic workers in Brookline in 1994 may have been the impetus for Massachusetts to write its first law on the subject, but the Guttmacher Institute notes that clinics across the US continue to report bombings, vandalism, blockades, arson and violent protests. Just because some opponents of abortion are peaceful doesn’t mean women don’t need protection from others.

The right to free speech is vital. But that does not mean that all other rights must yield to it at all times.

Los Angeles, June 29