Full Version: Free speech or disturbing the peace?
Excellent post regarding the court decision Mrs Pigpen!. 
You are clearly head and shoulders above Harriet Myers. 
Then again, I think most us are.
The Frisby case contains some interesting language about whether or not one house can be targeted. The court appears to have been concerend with whether or not leafleting and the like would be affected. As long as that right is protected, it looks as if targeting one home(i.e.-the home of an abortion provider) is off limits.
The right to leaflet and to go from house to house.
However, the unwilling listener has to be protected in his home.
Like a lot of constitutional matters, it appears like hair-splitting that would be hard to enforce, but not in the Omaha instance.
So if you are tryinng to educate people in a residential area, it looks as if it's fair game. That would explain why missionaries can knock on your door. What cannot occur evidently, is the targeting of one home, against the lone,unwilling listener.
I hereby change my mind again, the Omaha group is obnoxiously guilty of targeting a single domicile, though the Nebraska statute does need some re-wording. Any more evidence to the contrary and I'll have to watch my Mitt-switch tendencies.
You are clearly head and shoulders above Harriet Myers. Then again, I think most us are.The Frisby case contains some interesting language about whether or not one house can be targeted. The court appears to have been concerend with whether or not leafleting and the like would be affected. As long as that right is protected, it looks as if targeting one home(i.e.-the home of an abortion provider) is off limits.
The right to leaflet and to go from house to house.
QUOTE
Protestors have not been barred from the residential neighborhoods. They may enter such neighborhoods, alone or in groups, even marching. . . . They may go door-to-door to proselytize their views. They may distribute literature in this manner . . . or through the mails. They may contact residents by telephone, short of harassment.
However, the unwilling listener has to be protected in his home.
QUOTE
The State's interest in protecting the wellbeing, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society.
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. at 471. Our prior decisions have often remarked on the unique nature of the home, "the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick," Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 125 (1969) (Black, J., concurring), and have recognized that
[p]reserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value.
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. at 471. Our prior decisions have often remarked on the unique nature of the home, "the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick," Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 125 (1969) (Black, J., concurring), and have recognized that
[p]reserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value.
Like a lot of constitutional matters, it appears like hair-splitting that would be hard to enforce, but not in the Omaha instance.
QUOTE
Here, in contrast, the picketing is narrowly directed at the household, not the public. The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way. Moreover, even if some such picketers have a broader communicative purpose, their activity nonetheless inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt:
So if you are tryinng to educate people in a residential area, it looks as if it's fair game. That would explain why missionaries can knock on your door. What cannot occur evidently, is the targeting of one home, against the lone,unwilling listener.
I hereby change my mind again, the Omaha group is obnoxiously guilty of targeting a single domicile, though the Nebraska statute does need some re-wording. Any more evidence to the contrary and I'll have to watch my Mitt-switch tendencies.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 1 2007, 09:35 AM) 
QUOTE
Here, in contrast, the picketing is narrowly directed at the household, not the public. The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way. Moreover, even if some such picketers have a broader communicative purpose, their activity nonetheless inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt:
So if you are tryinng to educate people in a residential area, it looks as if it's fair game. That would explain why missionaries can knock on your door. What cannot occur evidently, is the targeting of one home, against the lone,unwilling listener.
I hereby change my mind again, the Omaha group is obnoxiously guilty of targeting a single domicile, though the Nebraska statute does need some re-wording. Any more evidence to the contrary and I'll have to watch my Mitt-switch tendencies.
What? How were they targeting a single domicile by driving a truck through the neighborhood and marching down the street?
QUOTE(entspeak @ Dec 1 2007, 01:29 PM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 1 2007, 09:35 AM)
QUOTE
Here, in contrast, the picketing is narrowly directed at the household, not the public. The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way. Moreover, even if some such picketers have a broader communicative purpose, their activity nonetheless inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt:
So if you are tryinng to educate people in a residential area, it looks as if it's fair game. That would explain why missionaries can knock on your door. What cannot occur evidently, is the targeting of one home, against the lone,unwilling listener.
I hereby change my mind again, the Omaha group is obnoxiously guilty of targeting a single domicile, though the Nebraska statute does need some re-wording. Any more evidence to the contrary and I'll have to watch my Mitt-switch tendencies.
What? How were they targeting a single domicile by driving a truck through the neighborhood and marching down the street?
From the article:
QUOTE
Bellevue officers ticketed seven members of Rescue the Heartland May 2 after they prayed, held signs and drove the truck outside the home of a Bellevue abortion clinic worker.
In a separate case, Sarpy County Court Judge Robert Wester last spring found seven members of the group not guilty of disturbing the peace and unlawful picketing after they picketed twice last year at the house of a different clinic worker. In one picket, Wester said the prosecution didn't prove the law was violated. The prosecution dismissed charges in the other picket.
In October, police ticketed six protesters for demonstrating again in front of the same house where they were ticketed May 2.
In a separate case, Sarpy County Court Judge Robert Wester last spring found seven members of the group not guilty of disturbing the peace and unlawful picketing after they picketed twice last year at the house of a different clinic worker. In one picket, Wester said the prosecution didn't prove the law was violated. The prosecution dismissed charges in the other picket.
In October, police ticketed six protesters for demonstrating again in front of the same house where they were ticketed May 2.
Sounds like homes are being targeted to me.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 1 2007, 12:43 PM)
From the article:
Sounds like homes are being targeted to me.
QUOTE
Bellevue officers ticketed seven members of Rescue the Heartland May 2 after they prayed, held signs and drove the truck outside the home of a Bellevue abortion clinic worker.
In a separate case, Sarpy County Court Judge Robert Wester last spring found seven members of the group not guilty of disturbing the peace and unlawful picketing after they picketed twice last year at the house of a different clinic worker. In one picket, Wester said the prosecution didn't prove the law was violated. The prosecution dismissed charges in the other picket.
In October, police ticketed six protesters for demonstrating again in front of the same house where they were ticketed May 2.
In a separate case, Sarpy County Court Judge Robert Wester last spring found seven members of the group not guilty of disturbing the peace and unlawful picketing after they picketed twice last year at the house of a different clinic worker. In one picket, Wester said the prosecution didn't prove the law was violated. The prosecution dismissed charges in the other picket.
In October, police ticketed six protesters for demonstrating again in front of the same house where they were ticketed May 2.
Sounds like homes are being targeted to me.
Driving a truck outside the home implies - driving. And unless they were doing donuts with this truck, this involves driving the truck outside of other homes in the neighborhood. In front of the home is not specific as well. I asked you to find proof that they stood in front of this house only and protested. You have yet do provide that evidence. I can't find any proof that they weren't marching down the street.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Dec 1 2007, 02:27 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 1 2007, 12:43 PM)
From the article:
Sounds like homes are being targeted to me.
QUOTE
Bellevue officers ticketed seven members of Rescue the Heartland May 2 after they prayed, held signs and drove the truck outside the home of a Bellevue abortion clinic worker.
In a separate case, Sarpy County Court Judge Robert Wester last spring found seven members of the group not guilty of disturbing the peace and unlawful picketing after they picketed twice last year at the house of a different clinic worker. In one picket, Wester said the prosecution didn't prove the law was violated. The prosecution dismissed charges in the other picket.
In October, police ticketed six protesters for demonstrating again in front of the same house where they were ticketed May 2.
In a separate case, Sarpy County Court Judge Robert Wester last spring found seven members of the group not guilty of disturbing the peace and unlawful picketing after they picketed twice last year at the house of a different clinic worker. In one picket, Wester said the prosecution didn't prove the law was violated. The prosecution dismissed charges in the other picket.
In October, police ticketed six protesters for demonstrating again in front of the same house where they were ticketed May 2.
Sounds like homes are being targeted to me.
Driving a truck outside the home implies - driving. And unless they were doing donuts with this truck, this involves driving the truck outside of other homes in the neighborhood. In front of the home is not specific as well. I asked you to find proof that they stood in front of this house only and protested. You have yet do provide that evidence. I can't find any proof that they weren't marching down the street.
Maybe they live on a cul-de-sac. No, I don't have a picture of these people standing outside of the homes picketing, but they themselves indicated that they are targeting residents who work at the women's clinics. They themselves sent warning notes to the occupants' homes telling them to "quit your job or we will picket you". You can't get more targeted than that.
From the court case:
QUOTE
The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the "captive" audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. See Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 530, 542 (1980). Cf. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., supra, at 72. The target of the focused picketing banned by the Brookfield ordinance is just such a "captive." The resident is figuratively, and perhaps literally, trapped within the home, and, because of the unique and subtle impact of such picketing, is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech. Cf. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. at 21-22 (noting ease of avoiding unwanted speech in other circumstances). Thus, the "evil" of targeted residential picketing, "the very presence of an unwelcome visitor at the home," Carey, supra, at 478 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting), is "created by the medium of expression itself." See Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, at 810. Accordingly, the Brookfield ordinance's [p488] complete ban of that particular medium of expression is narrowly tailored.
Of course, this case presents only a facial challenge to the ordinance. Particular hypothetical applications of the ordinance -- to, for example, a particular resident's use of his or her home as a place of business or public meeting, or to picketers present at a particular home by invitation of the resident -- may present somewhat different questions. Initially, the ordinance by its own terms may not apply in such circumstances, since the ordinance's goal is the protection of residential privacy, App. to Juris. Statement A-26, and since it speaks only of a "residence or dwelling," not a place of business, id. at A-28. Cf. Carey, supra, at 457 (quoting an antipicketing ordinance expressly rendered inapplicable by use of home as a place of business or to hold a public meeting). Moreover, since our First Amendment analysis is grounded in protection of the unwilling residential listener, the constitutionality of applying the ordinance to such hypotheticals remains open to question. These are, however, questions we need not address today in order to dispose of appellees' facial challenge.
Because the picketing prohibited by the Brookfield ordinance is speech directed primarily at those who are presumptively unwilling to receive it, the State has a substantial and justifiable interest in banning it.
Of course, this case presents only a facial challenge to the ordinance. Particular hypothetical applications of the ordinance -- to, for example, a particular resident's use of his or her home as a place of business or public meeting, or to picketers present at a particular home by invitation of the resident -- may present somewhat different questions. Initially, the ordinance by its own terms may not apply in such circumstances, since the ordinance's goal is the protection of residential privacy, App. to Juris. Statement A-26, and since it speaks only of a "residence or dwelling," not a place of business, id. at A-28. Cf. Carey, supra, at 457 (quoting an antipicketing ordinance expressly rendered inapplicable by use of home as a place of business or to hold a public meeting). Moreover, since our First Amendment analysis is grounded in protection of the unwilling residential listener, the constitutionality of applying the ordinance to such hypotheticals remains open to question. These are, however, questions we need not address today in order to dispose of appellees' facial challenge.
Because the picketing prohibited by the Brookfield ordinance is speech directed primarily at those who are presumptively unwilling to receive it, the State has a substantial and justifiable interest in banning it.
Seems to me the above fits to a tee. The speech specifically (not just primarily, though it would also apply in that case) targets unwilling residential listeners.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 1 2007, 10:13 PM)
Maybe they live on a cul-de-sac. No, I don't have a picture of these people standing outside of the homes picketing, but they themselves indicated that they are targeting residents who work at the women's clinics. They themselves sent warning notes to the occupants' homes telling them to "quit your job or we will picket you". You can't get more targeted than that.
They themselves sent a warning to an employee that said "quit your job or we will picket you." That person quit. Are you referring to the same house? Or are you getting the facts confused.
QUOTE
From the court case:
Seems to me the above fits to a tee. The speech specifically (not just primarily, though it would also apply in that case) targets unwilling residential listeners.
QUOTE
The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the "captive" audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. See Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 530, 542 (1980). Cf. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., supra, at 72. The target of the focused picketing banned by the Brookfield ordinance is just such a "captive." The resident is figuratively, and perhaps literally, trapped within the home, and, because of the unique and subtle impact of such picketing, is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech. Cf. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. at 21-22 (noting ease of avoiding unwanted speech in other circumstances). Thus, the "evil" of targeted residential picketing, "the very presence of an unwelcome visitor at the home," Carey, supra, at 478 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting), is "created by the medium of expression itself." See Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, at 810. Accordingly, the Brookfield ordinance's [p488] complete ban of that particular medium of expression is narrowly tailored.
Of course, this case presents only a facial challenge to the ordinance. Particular hypothetical applications of the ordinance -- to, for example, a particular resident's use of his or her home as a place of business or public meeting, or to picketers present at a particular home by invitation of the resident -- may present somewhat different questions. Initially, the ordinance by its own terms may not apply in such circumstances, since the ordinance's goal is the protection of residential privacy, App. to Juris. Statement A-26, and since it speaks only of a "residence or dwelling," not a place of business, id. at A-28. Cf. Carey, supra, at 457 (quoting an antipicketing ordinance expressly rendered inapplicable by use of home as a place of business or to hold a public meeting). Moreover, since our First Amendment analysis is grounded in protection of the unwilling residential listener, the constitutionality of applying the ordinance to such hypotheticals remains open to question. These are, however, questions we need not address today in order to dispose of appellees' facial challenge.
Because the picketing prohibited by the Brookfield ordinance is speech directed primarily at those who are presumptively unwilling to receive it, the State has a substantial and justifiable interest in banning it.
Of course, this case presents only a facial challenge to the ordinance. Particular hypothetical applications of the ordinance -- to, for example, a particular resident's use of his or her home as a place of business or public meeting, or to picketers present at a particular home by invitation of the resident -- may present somewhat different questions. Initially, the ordinance by its own terms may not apply in such circumstances, since the ordinance's goal is the protection of residential privacy, App. to Juris. Statement A-26, and since it speaks only of a "residence or dwelling," not a place of business, id. at A-28. Cf. Carey, supra, at 457 (quoting an antipicketing ordinance expressly rendered inapplicable by use of home as a place of business or to hold a public meeting). Moreover, since our First Amendment analysis is grounded in protection of the unwilling residential listener, the constitutionality of applying the ordinance to such hypotheticals remains open to question. These are, however, questions we need not address today in order to dispose of appellees' facial challenge.
Because the picketing prohibited by the Brookfield ordinance is speech directed primarily at those who are presumptively unwilling to receive it, the State has a substantial and justifiable interest in banning it.
Seems to me the above fits to a tee. The speech specifically (not just primarily, though it would also apply in that case) targets unwilling residential listeners.
You are quoting a case that dealt with a much less broad law that was upheld because the law was so very specific. You should know that the protesters in the Brookfield case said that they would go back to the neighborhood and protest in compliance with the decision - by marching down the street and not standing in front of the house.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Dec 2 2007, 12:00 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 1 2007, 10:13 PM)
Maybe they live on a cul-de-sac. No, I don't have a picture of these people standing outside of the homes picketing, but they themselves indicated that they are targeting residents who work at the women's clinics. They themselves sent warning notes to the occupants' homes telling them to "quit your job or we will picket you". You can't get more targeted than that.
They themselves sent a warning to an employee that said "quit your job or we will picket you." That person quit. Are you referring to the same house? Or are you getting the facts confused.
Link
QUOTE
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- An anti-abortion group has a new strategy: It plans to picket the homes of all employees of a Bellevue abortion clinic.
*snip*
The group sent at least two letters to employees of the clinic run by Dr. LeRoy Carhart, giving the employees two weeks to quit or face protests at homes.
When the deadline passed for Pender, the protesters moved into her Bellevue neighborhood with prayer vigils and graphic anti-abortion posters.
*snip*
The group sent at least two letters to employees of the clinic run by Dr. LeRoy Carhart, giving the employees two weeks to quit or face protests at homes.
When the deadline passed for Pender, the protesters moved into her Bellevue neighborhood with prayer vigils and graphic anti-abortion posters.
This is the group in question, correct?
Edited to add: For what it's worth, I'm 70 percent certain that public displays of graphic imagery like "aborted fetuses" on trucks and billboards has been successfully banned in the past. For the same reasons that other graphic imagery could be banned (the truck couldn't cruise the streets displaying a giant penis, for instance). If not, they damn sure should be....especially if the FCC can ban graphic material from the airwaves and I'm more free to change the channel than avoid a gruesome billboard. I wouldn't take my children to see a movie with gruesome and graphic bloody scenes in it, but something like that is free to drive around the streets? That's crap.
Their primary purpose to to target the lone occupant of the home. Driving a truck through the neighborhood doesn't get six protesters in front of th house doesn't qualify them under the limitations listed in the Frisby(sp?) case.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 2 2007, 09:57 AM)
Their primary purpose to to target the lone occupant of the home. Driving a truck through the neighborhood doesn't get six protesters in front of th house doesn't qualify them under the limitations listed in the Frisby(sp?) case.
Were the six protesters standing in front of the house? Protesting outside the house is not specific. Were they protesting outside the house by standing in front of it or by marching down the street? If it is the latter, they fit, to a tee, the loophole discussed by White in Frisby. So, Frisby does not serve as a valid precedent. O'Connor limited the USSC decision to those who protest by standing in front of a particular home - then that home is targeted.
And let's be clear, I don't believe that the protesters' First Amendment rights were violated. I just don't believe Frisby is a valid precedent. Not based on the information that I've read.
Questions for debate:
1.)Is the group guilty of disturbing the peace and/or unlawful picketing?
It appears so.........
2.)s this a matter of the infringement of the right of free speech?
My opinion on this is they broke the law, now just because they dont agree with the law doesn't mean it ceases to be a law.
Under the Nebraska legislative page you posted, the following was stated....
Now since the abortion doctors and staff are people, these protesters broke the law. Now it is a misdemeanor as it should be, its not like they went to prison.
The punishment for something like this should be light in my opinion. Just enough to inconvenience them similar to the way they have a habit of inconveniencing others. There are other more effective ways to get your opinion out than protesting.
1.)Is the group guilty of disturbing the peace and/or unlawful picketing?
It appears so.........
2.)s this a matter of the infringement of the right of free speech?
My opinion on this is they broke the law, now just because they dont agree with the law doesn't mean it ceases to be a law.
Under the Nebraska legislative page you posted, the following was stated....
QUOTE
Section 28-1322
Disturbing the peace; penalty.
(1) Any person who shall intentionally disturb the peace and quiet of any person, family, or neighborhood commits the offense of disturbing the peace.
(2) Disturbing the peace is a Class III misdemeanor.
Disturbing the peace; penalty.
(1) Any person who shall intentionally disturb the peace and quiet of any person, family, or neighborhood commits the offense of disturbing the peace.
(2) Disturbing the peace is a Class III misdemeanor.
Now since the abortion doctors and staff are people, these protesters broke the law. Now it is a misdemeanor as it should be, its not like they went to prison.
The punishment for something like this should be light in my opinion. Just enough to inconvenience them similar to the way they have a habit of inconveniencing others. There are other more effective ways to get your opinion out than protesting.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Dec 2 2007, 10:10 AM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 2 2007, 09:57 AM)
Their primary purpose to to target the lone occupant of the home. Driving a truck through the neighborhood doesn't get six protesters in front of th house doesn't qualify them under the limitations listed in the Frisby(sp?) case.
Were the six protesters standing in front of the house? Protesting outside the house is not specific. Were they protesting outside the house by standing in front of it or by marching down the street? If it is the latter, they fit, to a tee, the loophole discussed by White in Frisby. So, Frisby does not serve as a valid precedent. O'Connor limited the USSC decision to those who protest by standing in front of a particular home - then that home is targeted.
And let's be clear, I don't believe that the protesters' First Amendment rights were violated. I just don't believe Frisby is a valid precedent. Not based on the information that I've read.
If they were going from door to door and proselytizing, they would certainly be within their rights. However, their target was the abortion clinic worker primarily. It was of secondary importance to go to the houses of other people and spread the word about the guy.
QUOTE
police ticketed six protesters for demonstrating again in front of the same house where they were ticketed May 2.
Is this quoted part wrong or out of context?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 2 2007, 03:25 PM)
If they were going from door to door and proselytizing, they would certainly be within their rights. However, their target was the abortion clinic worker primarily. It was of secondary importance to go to the houses of other people and spread the word about the guy.
Primary or secondary importance is irrelevant. Frisby leaves the door open to protesting up and down a street based on the definition of "picketing".
QUOTE
QUOTE
police ticketed six protesters for demonstrating again in front of the same house where they were ticketed May 2.
Is this quoted part wrong or out of context?
It's not wrong or out of context, it just isn't specific. The report also states that a truck was driven outside of this house. Does that mean that the truck stayed just outside of this house? Or was it driven around the block or through the neighborhood. In front of is not specific. They could be passing by the front of the the house... that would still be in front of, but still fall beyond the limitations of Frisby... because they weren't protesting solely in front of this one house. If someone can show me some evidence that they were standing solely in front of this one house, I would agree that Frisby might apply. Until then, it is unclear.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.