On September 22, Georgetown University campus police removed from outside the school’s front gates a small group of students who had been peacefully advocating for reproductive rights, women’s rights, and equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.
A Texas court decision ruling “upskirt” pictures constitutional is the latest example of the courts protecting rape culture in the name of the First Amendment.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan, independent agency responsible for investigating civil rights issues, held a briefing on Friday to discuss the effects of recent federal guidance on Title IX sexual harassment law in schools, and whether that guidance might come in conflict with the First Amendment.
The complaint cites incidents dating back to 1996 in which the Jackson police detained, threatened arrest, and arrested Pro-Life Mississippi members while protesting what is today the state’s only remaining abortion clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Called “An Act to Promote Public Safety and Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities,” the bill was proposed in response to a June Supreme Court ruling that dealt a blow to buffer zone advocates.
Reading the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Massachusetts buffer zone case, you might get the idea that free speech in the form of protests and handing out literature about social and political issues is practiced without restriction in the United States. But that is not the case.
I have seen countless women reduced to tears and shaking, just for trying to access the health care to which they are constitutionally entitled. That isn’t peaceful assembly. That is harassment, hiding behind the First Amendment.
I don’t remember ever seeing the word “gentle” used to describe queer activism in the ’90s, anti-war marches in the 2000s, or the Occupy movement in 2011, even though those activists have a much more “gentle” record than anti-choice protesters do.
In striking a Massachusetts buffer zone law, the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically reframed the debate over balancing the rights of patients and providers with the rights of abortion protesters.
According to the Roberts Court, Massachusetts had not shown that it tried to address clinic protests in a less restrictive means than enacting a fixed 35-foot buffer zone.