Abortion foes move closer to women for personal, caring, consensual conversations - while holding large signs

WBUR reports from outside the Planned Parenthood clinic on Commonwealth Avenue today.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

    Free tagging: 

    Comments

    LOL @ Adam

    By on

    Love the headline. However the link doesn't have anyone holding up pictures of dead (pig) fetuses!

    Seriously though, seems like these folks were foaming at the mouth waiting for this day.

    And I'll believe the "consensual" right after pigs fly out of my ass. More like screaming matches.. I feel sorry for anyone walking by or trying to go inside to get services.

    up
    22

    Coexist!

    By on

    Massachusetts liberals. The most tolerant crowd around, as long as you agree with them.

    up
    26

    What church do you attend?

    By on

    Maybe we'll stop by with big signs about how catholics are all going to hell? How about telling Westboro Baptist that you'll be waking a gay soldier?

    up
    17

    You seem to be confused

    You seem to be confused about what is, on the one hand, kind, decent, and reasonable and what is, on the other, legally protected. You'd be entirely within your rights to hold up big signs outside a Catholic church saying that Catholics are all going to hell, and Westboro has been repeatedly found to be within their rights to protest funerals.

    no.

    By on

    You actually seem to be the one confused. Fishy-poo didn't say anything about the law, he mentioned tolerance (and what he said about liberals wanting tolerance only for themselves doesn't even make sense in this case, but he/she never makes sense, anyway), and the responder is questioning what sort of tolerance it might look like if people treated fishy's church with the same respect as these fine abortion protesters. It might be totally within your legal rights to stand outside any place of business or worship and protest what's going on inside (or what you think is going on inside), but that is not what practicing tolerance looks like.

    up
    17

    Well see, that's where Fishy

    By on

    Well see, that's where Fishy is absolutely correct. Liberals don't know what the word tolerance even means because they tolerate nothing and nobody that does not fit their sick agenda right down the line.

    up
    11

    We understand the difference

    We understand the difference between what is legally acceptable in society and what is morally acceptable in society and that the two are not always the same It's clear cut. I don't like the ruling but the Court has spoken, we all get that. I don't see anyone calling for nullification, so back off the straw man.

    Yeah when

    I think tolerance I think conservatives. The modern GOP has more in common with the Taliban then they do the founding fathers.

    up
    35

    What exactly are you looking for?

    By on

    We tolerate your right to never get an abortion.
    We tolerate your right to never visit Planned Parenthood for any of their myriad other services.
    We tolerate your right to have opinions.
    Adam even tolerates your right to spew those opinions on his website.

    None of the above requires us not to think you're kind of a jerk.

    up
    40

    In what other setting would this even be allowed?

    If you were to hang out outside of some doctor's office trying to offer unqualified "counseling" and "advice" to strangers about some medical procedure they were having, or which doctor they should or should not see, people would be up in arms about it. Why these clowns are allowed to harass women is beyond me.

    As much as someone has a right to their speech, I have a right to be left alone and not listen to their garbage. This ruling is going to cause conflict and confrontation.

    up
    41

    Actually, you don't.

    I have a right to be left alone and not listen to their garbage.

    That's not really true, not while you're out and about in a public place. Unless someone is threatening you or preventing you from going about your business, they can pretty much say whatever they want, and you don't have any legally recognized right to be protected from hearing it.

    up
    14

    Well, I would argue that these people are preventing me from...

    I would argue that these people are in fact preventing me from going about my business. Plus, threatening is a somewhat subjective term. Reasonable fear of harm is all that would be required.

    There is no unqualified right to simply say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want (in public). For example, speech that may incite violence like a riot or a large fight, etc. is not protected speech.

    up
    10

    Reasonable fear of harm.

    " Reasonable fear of harm is all that would be required. "

    It's been found pretty consistently that yelling at people, insulting their religious beliefs, saying that they're evil and that they are going to hell, calling them filthy names, etc., does not constitute a credible threat.

    I'm appalled at the degree to which people I think of as my political allies - people who support abortion rights -- are ready to use the force of government to suppress speech with which they disagree.

    up
    13

    Suppress speech?

    By on

    A yellow line at 35 feet no more suppresses speech than does the prohibition of teacher led prayer in public school suppress freedom of religion.
    I am not sure why anyone thinks it is alright to walk up to a stranger who is not in visible distress and offer an opinion on medical intervention. Maybe we should develop a team of counselors that talk to these counselors about the need for mental health treatment.
    If the concern is really about supporting life, why not harangue people walking into restaurants and preach to them about ordering trash fish in order to help sustainable seafood levels?
    Why not have teams approach large men and talk to them about sodium intake?
    How about if "counselors" start approaching open carry advocates and continue to chatter at them after they have said to go away?

    How?

    I would argue that these people are in fact preventing me from going about my business.

    How?

    People might be up in arms...

    If you were to hang out outside of some doctor's office trying to offer unqualified "counseling" and "advice" to strangers about some medical procedure they were having, or which doctor they should or should not see, people would be up in arms about it.

    People might be up in arms about it, but you'd be entirely within your rights.

    Thank YOU!

    By on

    I was thinking about this also..

    How would people like AntiVaxxers standing out in front of a Pediatricians office?

    or as a matter of fact, how about anyone standing out in front of ANY medical office passing out fliers or trying to have a 'personal, consensual' conversation about treatment.

    Planned Parenthood is a medical facility, its just a specific service. So why is this any different than a standard doctors office? It really is not..

    up
    24

    FOCUS, people.

    How would people like AntiVaxxers standing out in front of a Pediatricians office?

    I wouldn't like it, but I would defend it as a clear-cut case of constitutionally protected free speech. Wouldn't you?

    Thats your opinion

    By on

    Not mine. There's a time and place for everything... standing out in front of a medical office holding signs of aborted (pig) fetuses and screaming "don't baby kill" isn't exactly the right time.

    Sorry. I don't agree. Stay the fuck away from me when I am going into a doctors office.

    up
    13

    We're not talking about your opinion or mine

    We're not talking about your opinion or mine about what's a reasonable way for people to act. We're talking about when it's OK to grant our government the authority to use force to suppress speech.

    I'll "stay the fuck away from you when you are going into a doctors office" or any other business for that matter, because I'm not an asshole. But that's not really the matter under discussion here.

    I have not seen, ever, a coherent legal argument as to why holding up disgusting pictures of pig fetuses and calling clinic visitors "murderers" should be banned. And I'm a staunch supporter of abortion rights, and a staunch opponent of the bullying tactics of many anti-abortion protesters. If you've lost me, you've lost the battle.

    I haven't seen anyone calling

    I haven't seen anyone calling to outright ban these abortion protests or signs. Everyone understands they have some right to be seen and heard. But many of us disagree to what extent they are allowed to interfere with the rights of women to access medical care and the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. That's the issue. No one is seriously calling for banning protesters, that's a straw man argument on here.

    up
    13

    Where's the disagreement?

    We're all in agreement that if a protester physically blocks access or threatens people, he's on the wrong side of the law. And we're also all in agreement that government, like fire, is an incredibly useful thing, but also an unreliable servant and a terrifying master, one that needs to be kept very well contained, which, in this case, means setting a very high bar before we allow government to use force to shut people up. And we're also all in agreement that saying mean and disgusting things and displaying pictures of dead fetal pigs and the like, while clearly nasty, doesn't rise to the level of that bar. Aren't we?

    Whoa, no one is calling for

    Whoa, no one is calling for "government to use force" to shut up protesters here. At least, no one remotely serious is. You keep acting like people want to ban the speech of the abortion foes. That's not the case.

    But we want where that speech can happen, i.e. the buffer zones, to be minimally regulated to protect the constitutional rights of women going into the clinics. I believe that a zone of a little bit more than the length of a first down is a reasonable limit. Obviously the Court said no, that's how it goes. But no one is jumping to using force on protesters or whatever. That sounds like something Glenn Beck would say honestly even if you don't intend it that way.

    I'm not buying the argument

    Right to privacy was not specifically enumerated in the constitution but stems from case law (Griswold v Connecticut, I think, but I'm no scholar).

    I doubt (but again I'm no scholar) that a court is going to extend this right to privacy to mean that people can't talk to you, hand literature to you, yell at you, insult you, take your picture, etc., while you are walking down a public street.

    Of course it's force

    when the government requires or prohibits something, it's not using gentle persuasion, it's using force. Staying outside the 35 foot buffer zone wasn't a friendly suggestion, anyone who didn't comply could be fined and jailed.

    Movie theater

    By on

    Then why can't I cry fire in a crowded movie theater.

    Yet the law says I can't because its a safety issue. So there's always exceptions to the rule.

    I think there needs to be an exception to the law regarding medical facilities and protesters.

    Read the case law.

    The "fire in a crowded theater" exception is crystal clear. The Alien and Sedition acts, on the other hand, were rightly overturned.

    What, exactly, is the principle you would invoke here?

    History bub

    By on

    IMAGE(http://www.politicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/John-Salvi21.jpg)

    Yelling fire in crowded spaces or calling in bomb threats is not protected because of a history of public safety issues arising from that speech.

    The idiots outside abortion clinics have long ago shown their inability to be calm and civil, and do pose a threat to public safety. That they think that's the best place and time to push their agenda is evidence enough; since it's a terrible real world attempt at changing the thing they want changed.

    Then again it's not about that.

    It's about taking punishment and judgment into their own self-righteous hands.

    up
    12

    The music stopped that day

    IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bz5-S929gWo/UH9FYRlh_VI/AAAAAAAAAGo/jtLV69hLeQM/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-18+at+00.05.10.png)

    I used to chat with Shannon at the bus stop until she stopped taking the bus out of fear of being followed by "peaceful counselors". She and her fiance used to have backyard parties - low key affairs with friends hanging out listening to music in the backyard.

    I was out of town when she was murdered. It took me a few days to realize that I knew her.

    The music stopped.

    Can't make blanket prohibitions, though

    The idiots outside abortion clinics have long ago shown their inability to be calm and civil, and do pose a threat to public safety.

    Yes we get it, some abortion protestors are violent. While you're painting with that broad brush, you might as well make an argument like, "male teenagers who wear hoodies and baggy pants have long ago shown their inability to be civil, and they do pose a threat to public safety." and call for restrictions on where they can congregate, hang out, etc.

    For better or worse, our legal system doesn't allow the government to restrict male teenagers who wear hoodies and baggy pants, even though they are associated with violence, and it doesn't allow the government to restrict abortion protesters, even though they are associated with violence.

    How about this prohibition?

    By on

    "male teenagers who wear hoodies and baggy pants have long ago shown their inability to be civil, and they do pose a threat to public safety."

    Can we prohibit them from displaying large swaths of their underwear?

    And this murder is relevant, how?

    Shall we bring up the individual cases of innocent people murdered by white rednecks to propose restricting white rednecks? Black teenagers? People from New Hampshire? Italians?

    Okay

    So you would also argue that the transformation from guns=tools to guns=fetish objects has nothing to do with all the school and mall and theater shootings?

    Right. Culture means nothing.

    Butchering women

    So much more civilized?

    Look up El Salvador and how many women have died from pregnancy complications due to fear of prosecution - even when said "pregnancy" is not viable (ectopic or molar). Consider as well that many of these women who died needlessly for your moral satisfaction had other children who are now without a mother to raise them. All because religious superstition and misogyny trumped medical sense.

    Also, note that the countries with the LOWEST abortion rates allow and facilitate free access to abortion ... but also free access to contraception, health care, and support for actual babies already born.

    Reality and facts can be found here: http://www.guttmacher.org/datacenter/index.jsp

    Mind your own reproductive organs - stay the hell away from those of other people.

    up
    15

    "Mind your own body"

    Swirls, I'm on your side on this one: I strongly support women's reproductive rights. But you've just got to be careful with the "it's the woman's body" argument. That's entirely debatable, and we don't have a common moral framework for talking about it.

    The fallacy of that entire line of argument can be shown by transposing it to the 1860s.

    "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but keep your nose out of my business."
    "If you don't believe in slavery, don't own slaves, but keep your nose out of my business."

    To the anti-abortion folks, it's not a matter of the woman's control over her own body, it's about a third party, which they believe to be a human being with rights of its own in the matter.

    No amount of saying "it's a fetus, neither I nor the law recognize it as a human" is going to have any traction, any more than, in the 1860s, any amount of saying, "it's a slave, i's my property and the law backs me up on this." was going to have any traction. The response to either is, of course, "you are completely wrong, and the law is, of course, entirely changeable.

    Slaves breathe on their own

    An embryo or a fetus below the viability limit? No. Sorry. It is not a "baby" until it is capable of life without the host.

    Note that 1/3 to 1/2 of implanted embryos never become anything but a clump of cells. But I suppose that you are one of those people who think that miscarriages should be prosecuted, too.

    Are we next going to get arguments for the right to life for parasites? Because any entity that requires that another person risk their health and life to support it, and requires its host for life is something that the already born human host gets to decide about.

    However, the basic argument stands. If you oppose abortion, create a society that supports contraception and free access to reproductive health care to all citizens of all ages and you will get very low abortion rates. Switzerland, an extremely Catholic country, adopted the approach that the Netherlands uses to achieve their extremely low abortion rates and the abortion rate dropped - even though they removed most of the restrictions and increased access to the procedure.

    Meanwhile, banning abortion? Doesn't reduce the abortion rate. It just kills a lot of women.

    Planned Parenthood

    Sccob, Planned Parenthood, by providing health care and education, has prevented more abortions than all of the anti-abortion protesters in the world combined.

    Yes Bob, but

    By on

    Be that as it may Bob, they still kill babies.

    They kill babies

    In the same way that butcher shops and steakhouses commit murder.

    Some people believe that a fetus is a baby and that ending a pregnancy is morally wrong.

    Some people believe that killing animals for food is murder and is morally wrong.

    These are entirely legitimate moral beliefs that, just like other moral beliefs, deserve a place in the public conversation

    They don't happen to be mainstream beliefs, nor are the moral beliefs that form the basis of our laws.

    If, no matter how sincere your belief is that meat is murder, if you blow up the butcher shop, murder the butcher, or assault the people going in to buy meat, you are a criminal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of most people.

    You can't redefine words.

    By on

    You can't redefine words. Referring to fetuses as "babies" is as absurd as calling gallbladders or tumors babies.

    Countless, helpless gallbladders have been slaughtered! Millions of innocent tumors have been massacred!

    Sounds pretty stupid.

    Uh?

    By on

    The St Patrick's Day Parade?

    Time to fundraise for Planned Parenthood

    By on

    Someone should start a fundraising drive. For every protestor/sign/person harassed by the protestors, all fundraisers agree to donate $0.01/$1/$10. Show up when the protesters do to count them. Advocate that others donate while on the street in your counter-protest.

    But make sure it is clear to the protesters that by showing up they are driving dollars to Planned Parenthood and if they want to cut the funding, they had better stop showing up.

    up
    22

    This is already happening.

    By on

    Facebook friend-of-a-friend posted about it earlier today, and it exploded; last I heard, she had received pledges totaling over $100 per protester who shows up on Saturday morning.

    up
    10

    Funny

    By on

    Those are the same types bitching and moaning about "baby mommas with 10 babies on the dole." While I am by no means a fan of anyone able-bodied getting my tax dollars while just sitting on his/her ass, I don't think outlawing abortion would solve that particular problem. Heck, it should be the other way around - those unable to support a child financially, with no father present, should be encouraged to get an abortion, not talked out of it.

    1st amendment cuts both ways

    By on

    They absolutely have the right to accost people in public spaces. And so do we! Per the idea originally expressed here, you're all invited to the protest I'm organizing at the St. Mary's Church in Grafton. We'll all bring placards, stand the legally-mandated 8 feet from the entrance, and harass quietly counsel anyone attempting to enter a church that is known for sending busloads of protesters to Planned Parenthood.

    Haven't decided on a Sunday in July yet; let me know if you want to come, I can probably fit four people in my car.

    EDIT: A few folks seem interested, and I can't direct-message you if you're not logged in. You can reach me at [email protected] if this sounds like something you'd be interested in doing.

    up
    24

    I can't wait

    ... for the church goers to tell the media how intimidated and threatened they feel by protesters nearby when they should be able to go to church in peace, etc.

    Without a trace of empathy or irony, of course.

    up
    10

    Protest them

    By on

    They should be protested just for using Comic Sans in parts of their church bulletin.

    up
    14

    Keep me up to date on this

    By on

    Get in touch with me offline. The email address is on the blog.

    Some interesting things are afoot. I think we should coordinate some plans here.

    Holy Jesus

    By on

    The Rude Pundit reads UHub. My online blogosphere of awesome places to read just came around full circle on me.

    Lee, How've you been!

    Good to see you're still at it.

    If I ever had to cite crucial rant influences, you'd easily be up there in the top 5 with Twain and Menken.

    Why?

    By on

    Yah, I get it, you're within your rights, eye-for-an-eye, turnabout is fair play, etc, but what does this really accomplish? Some people in Boston are being upset trying to go to Planned Parenthood, so you're going to upset some tangentially related people trying to go to church in Grafton? It's inflammatory and maybe you'll grab a headline, but I don't think it makes the world a better place. Better off counter-protesting / counter-'counseling' at Planned Parenthood itself, or being an escort as noted below.

    Volunteer to be an patient escort

    By on

    If you're interested in helping those who wish to access Planned Parenthood but who might be scared or overwhelmed by passing through the crowd of protesters, then think about volunteering a few hours a week to be a clinic escort. You would help them get the services they need while getting the chance to give the protesters some dirty looks. You can sign up at the link below.

    https://plannedparenthoodvolunteer.hire.com/viewjob.html?optlink-view=vi...

    whether you think abortion is OK or not, don't forget about all the other really important services that Planned Parenthood offers, and which are, in fact, the majority of the services that patients seek there. Affordable birth control, pregnancy tests, STD and cancer screenings, and even support for pregnant women who have chosen to keep their babies. Why not help women get access to birth control and reduce the number of abortions in the first place?

    When a close friend of mine thought she was pregnant when she was a teenager, she was terrified and didn't know what to do, and had no money or health resources, but knew she wanted to keep the baby. If it wasn't for Planned Parenthood, she wouldn't have gotten the support and healthcare she needed to bring a beautiful, healthy daughter into the world. So for all those out there who think abortion is awful and who want to make PP disappear just because they offer them, don't forget about all the pro-life work they actually do with helping mothers have healthy children and helping diagnose and treat cancer and other diseases.

    up
    27

    I think people are overreacting here.....

    With the buffer zones, people going to clinics have to walk by the protesters anyway, unless they get a parking spot on the street within that buffer zone. And since judges started giving out actual jail time in the late 1990s, (and more serious jail time for 2nd and 3rd offenses), people simply stopped the violent in your face protests.

    Its pretty tame now, with mostly elderly protesters, a few pig fetus signs, and some nutjobs.

    Asking again

    By on

    Is there anything keeping the city from selling/renting the sidewalks to private interest (bad precedent to other private properties non-withstanding)? They already lease Yawkey Way to the Red Sox who can discriminate as they please. Several sidewalks downtown also have public and private halves of what appear to be one sidewalk (BOA building comes to mind).

    Rent the sidewalks to PP on a $1 / 100 year lease thus allowing the police the power to remove trespassers designated by PP.

    Issue over. Assholes Fuck off.

    Sure. Why not.

    And when the political party wants to hold its convention, the city can just temporarily lease to it all the sidewalks of the surrounding area, so that demonstrators not to the party's liking can be removed by the police.

    Similarly, if the some friend of a city councilor whose store sells goods produced by child labor gets sick of you protesting against child labor in front of his store , the city can just lease the sidewalk to him, with the same result.

    Pretty soon, all that nasty, messy, free speech stuff will just be an unpleasant memory.

    OK, we get it. You don't like the protesters. I don't like them either. That doesn't mean we ought to be using the power of government to try to get rid of them. That's profoundly un-American.

    Well he kind of makes a point.....

    Maybe you can't "lease" the sidewalks and dictate who can and cannot protest/walk/etc on that sidewalk, but political conventions already do dictate who can protest on certain public streets, sidewalks, alleys, etc.

    The Red Sox also must lease public streets and can restrict access to those "public" areas.

    Yes, but it's wrong

    but political conventions already do dictate who can protest on certain public streets, sidewalks, alleys, etc

    And nearly everyone agrees that this is blatantly unconstitutional restriction on exactly the kind of political speech - namely, publicly speaking out to influence our elected government -- that the first amendment is there to protect.

    Easy

    By on

    For the same reason that I wouldn't want a pro-life mayor to "lease" the sidewalk to the protesters so that they could prevent PP from using the entrance because it opens onto the protesters' land.

    The sidewalk is for public conveyance. Until the protesters aren't part of the public, you're going to have to take a different tact.

    Someone throw a dictionary at this guy...

    By on

    “I noticed that immediately. There’s a certain freedom to it, where you’re not yelling and sounding like you’re obtrusive in some way.”

    Interesting. You have more freedom to work on restricting other people's freedom. How special for you.

    And you really need to get a better handle on the definition of "obtrusive". It would include pestering someone walking into a medical facility having assume that she's done no research and is in the least bit interested in what you have to say.

    Asking again

    Specifically what freedom of the clinic's clients are the protesters restricting, assuming that the protesters are obeying the law by not threatening or assaulting the clients?

    Take these one at a time

    Writing down license numbers.

    Perfectly legal. In fact the government and a number of private data vendors have dispensed with paper and pen, and have vehicles with plate readers circulating at all times. You can buy databases of which cars have been seen parked where. Also, has nothing to do with buffer zones.

    Following people

    I'm sure there's plenty of case law that defines when following someone becomes prohibited behavior. Has nothing to do with buffer zones.

    Harassing employees by blocking their entrance and exit and following them home.

    Blocking the entrance and exit are assault and battery and are already adequately covered by existing laws irrespective of buffer zones. Following people home has nothing to do with buffer zones.

    Thus the word "work" in my rant

    By on

    Unless they physically prevent someone from entering the clinic they of course aren't actually restricting anything. But they'd very much like to be able to so restrict those same people. And they're willing to use intimidation to do so.

    Man, seriously, FUCK this! I

    By on

    Man, seriously, FUCK this! I go to Planned Parenthood because I'm broke as hell and they give excellent care and you usually don't have to wait long for an appointment. My vag specialist is out in Burlington so if I get a UTI, I prefer to go to Planned Parenthood on Comm Ave because it's convenient and fast. I can't even get pregnant because of my reproductive problems and the last thing I need is assholes trying to sermonize with images of fetal pigs out front.
    My friends go for various reasons -- mostly just STD testing and routine check ups. And most of them are gay, lesbian, and trans! They're not having children! The staff has always been professional and courteous and sensitive to their needs.

    up
    12

    Also, I just want to add,

    By on

    Also, I just want to add, that a co-worker of mine who is a devout Catholic had to have an abortion because she had an ectopic pregnancy that would have caused life threatening complications and wasn't even viable anyway. I seriously have ZERO PATIENCE for people often with no medical knowledge whatsoever who make women and anyone else who receives services from Planned Parenthood feel bad for making RESPONSIBLE decisions about their own healthcare.

    up
    11

    I think the protesters would

    By on

    I think the protesters would get a lot farther with their message if, instead of yelling at women entering Planned Parenthood, they offered to pay for all the health care costs of the pregnant women and then offer to adopt the child(ren) or financially support the child(ren) until they turned 18.

    up
    12

    I wonder what would happen if

    By on

    I wonder what would happen if advocates against sweat shops and slave labor followed people around who were clothes shopping and "engaged them in conversation" regarding the sometimes fatal conditions children worked in to make the shirt they liked in several colors? Should they be allowed to walk along Side you yo the register and urge you to reconsider? What if vegans were allowed to stand next to you in line at macdonalds and gently remind you that meat is murder while you waited for your 99 cent quarter pounder? Should activists be able to camp out at jewelry stores that sell conflict diamonds with pictures of children with their arms hacked off and urge you to express your love in a different way? Should civil rights advocates be allowed to stand in front of police headquarters and gently explain officers showing up to work and leaving work that whenever they shoot at a suspect, that is someone's child?

    One at a time

    I wonder what would happen if advocates against sweat shops and slave labor followed people around who were clothes shopping and "engaged them in conversation" regarding the sometimes fatal conditions children worked in to make the shirt they liked in several colors?

    Might change a few people's minds.

    Should they be allowed to walk along Side you yo the register and urge you to reconsider?

    Yes, if they're on a public street and not assaulting you.

    What if vegans were allowed to stand next to you in line at macdonalds and gently remind you that meat is murder while you waited for your 99 cent quarter pounder?

    McDonalds is private property. They should stand on the public sidewalk outside.

    Should activists be able to camp out at jewelry stores that sell conflict diamonds with pictures of children with their arms hacked off and urge you to express your love in a different way?

    Yes, of course, if they're on public property.

    Should civil rights advocates be allowed to stand in front of police headquarters and gently explain officers showing up to work and leaving work that whenever they shoot at a suspect, that is someone's child?

    Yes.

    good point.

    By on

    if it were disruptive to corporate america, my guess is the likelihood of the 35ft buffer zone reinstatement would be pretty high.