Springfield Planned Parenthood v. Jones

Case Type:

Hypothetical (based on several actual cases)

Exigence:

Springfield Planned Parenthood, a clinic which provides (among many other things) abortion services, has been targeted by several national pro-choice groups for demonstrations. The activity is varied; some protesters attempt to counsel women seeking abortions in a quiet manner; others come in groups and hold up very explicit images of aborted fetuses and use loudspeakers to yell slogans, frequently insulting clinic workers; others attempt to physically block the clinic entrance and driveway; others kneel on the sidewalk and pray; others don't do much of anything, although their presence increases the crowd and makes it more difficult for people to walk or even drive on the street. In addition, pro-choice groups also show up and protest. Women entering the clinic feel anxiety and stress; clinic workers have a hard time; other local businesses complain of the ruckus. The City of Springfield has delegated extra police to the clinic, but they have been unable to secure quick entry for all who want in. Planned Parenthood sues, and wins from the court an order (injunction):

establishing a 35 foot "fixed buffer zone" around the clinic driveway and entrance. Within the fixed buffer zone, protesting is prohibited.
extablishing a second, 100 foot "floating buffer zone" around the clinic entrance. Within this buffer zone, "no person can knowingly approach another within eight feet for the purpose of displaying a sign, engaging in oral protest, educating, counseling, or passing leaflets or handbills, unless the other person consents to such an approach." [In other words: Protesters, counsellors and so on can stand between 35-100 feet of the clinic entrance. But while there, they cannot approach closer than 8 feet to a person trying to get in, unless that person consents. Notice that this means that protesters can stand still while the woman approaches them. This is called a "floating buffer zone" because it gives each person entering the clinic a kind of 8 foot bubble of "non-approaching" around her, that floats with her as she moves.]
[the court did not say what happens beyond 100 feet. Presumably, people remain free to do anything they want there, subject to the normal laws against violence, harassment, noise, blocking streets and sidewalks and so on.]

Audience:

The Supreme Court; you, the general public.

Possible
Constraints:

The Supreme Court has ruled three times on related issues in the last decade:

Madsen v. Women's Health Center (1994)
Schenck v. Pro Choice Network (1997)
Hill v. Colorado (2000) (courtesy of Medill's On the Docket website)

Here are some arguments excerpted from these cases:

Typical facts, according to the majority on the Court, which has supported at least some restrictions on protest.	Typical facts, according to Justice Scalia who is opposed to any restrictions on protest.
A fixed buffer zone is necessary to protect the public interest.	It is for the Executive Branch (i.e., the police) to enforce public order, not the courts.
What is being limited is conduct, or a form of delivery, not speech.	Speech is being supressed--worse, speech with a specific content and expressing a specific viewpoint.
The First Amendment does not give a right to demand the attention of unwilling listeners.	There is no right to be left alone.
The restrictions still allow the message to be heard.	The restrictions silence the message.
This is not prior restraint.	---

Decision:

Up to you.

Related
issues:

Harm to society
Harm to individuals
Offense
Other special places
Time, place and manner regulations
Expressive conduct

Notes:

None.

For help
with these categories.

http://faculty-web.at.nwu.edu/commstud/freespeech/