[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/mccullen-v-coakley_n_5533136.html]Article[/url] [quote]The Supreme Court ruled on McCullen v. Coakley Thursday, striking down a Massachusetts law requiring protesters to stay at least 35 feet from an abortion clinic's entrance and walkways. In a unanimous opinion, the court held that such buffer zones violate First Amendment free speech rights. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. "It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas," Roberts said. "Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site." Eleanor McCullen, the lead plaintiff in the case, is a member of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who argued the buffer zone violates her First Amendment right to free speech. "It's America," she told NPR earlier this year. "I should be able to walk and talk gently, lovingly, anywhere with anybody." But abortion clinic escorts, owners and patient advocates claim the protesters that surround clinics on a daily basis and try to follow patients up to the door are anything but gentle. Roxanne Sutocky, a patient advocate at an abortion clinic in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, told The Huffington Post that she has had to coach numerous terrified patients through their walk past the protesters into the clinic.[/quote] I'm not so sure I agree with the court on this one. The court didn't necessarily rule that any buffer zone is unconstitutional, but it will definitely be far more difficult to establish them now. Stopping people screaming at and filming people as they walk into a medical facility seems like a pretty good reason to establish a narrow restriction on speech to me.