abortion clinic access bill
Topics: FreeSpeech
31 May 1994
From: ervan
The news coverage on exactly what this bill does are a little vague,
but it includes at least stiff fines and jail time for blocking clinic
access or threatening patients. On the face of it, this seems okay.
The activity being banned is clearly physical obstruction and not speech
(though much of this would be a non-problem if property owners had
never lost the right to control access to their property just because
a business is there).
On second thought, it is not so obvious though. The activities specified
were already illegal, and already enforced. What did this new bill do?
It increased the penalties. It increased them specifically in a content
sensitive fashion. If you blockade, oh say, a fur sale, you'll be hauled
off to jail for the evening and fined some token amount, $100 or so.
But if you blockade an abortion clinic, you'll be hauled off to jail
for 6 months, minimum. The former blockade is PC and the latter is not.
The violation of a minor 'real' law (trespass) is being used as an
excuse to punish the content of the speech.
This seems to be a new trend. Chicago passed a law making anti-semitic
graffiti several times more expensive than nonsense graffiti (even though
the content in question is legal to express in some other format). And,
of course, there is the famous RAV vs. St. Paul case where St. Paul made
it a considerably worse crime to engage in vandalism with racist intent.
This was struck down. Hate crime laws have become common in lots of places.
If you assault someone because they are gay, that's a stiffer penalty
that assaulting someone because they are a little old lady with a just
cashed retirement check. The penalty for assault should be stiff
and should be uniformly enforced. It should not be used as a litmus
test of correct political beliefs. While assaulting someone just because
they are gay is truly offensive, making it a greater offense merely
makes other types of assault lesser offenses. Where does this stop?
Oh let's see, assailant was white, victim black, 10 years. Victim was
rich, assailant, who cares, 6 months, etc.
The penalty should be proportional to the damage caused and not based
on the speech content or the political intentions of the perpetrator.
---------
Most of you know, but for those couple who don't, I am pro-choice and
have no sympathy for the idiocy of the "Operation Rescue" people.
However, that doesn't keep me from seeing a serious First Amendment
problem here.
Home