Apologists for the measure claim rather anemically that the law is necessary to prevent “harassment,” and they promise that it strikes a reasonable “balance” between respect for free expression and the need to protect visitors from being hassled. McCullen and her lawyers disagree, holding that because the law’s applicability is contingent not on one’s behavior but on one’s speech per se, it is unconstitutional. They are right.Similarly: What's the deal with restraining orders? What if a guy just wants to talk to his ex -- yeah okay, sometimes things get out of hand, but still, what about the First Amendment?
If anything we need more transparency in the abortion business. A lot of these abortion mills are surrounded with suspicious-looking guards wearing "escort" vests -- they must have something to hide. If I could just follow those murdering sluts right up to the door, I'm sure I can get in there and find out. I'm good with the ladies!
UPDATE. In comments. Formerly_Nom_De_Plume notices one of the crazier quotes from Cooke's column:
...Massachusetts’s law discriminates against citizens not for the manner in which they express themselves but simply for holding a point of view, for praying, or for displaying a protest sign — for exercising one’s right to “walk and talk gently, lovingly, anywhere with anybody,” in the words of [clinic protester] Eleanor McCullen."Then," says Nom, "I'm sure Eleanor won't mind if I shadow her as she walks into and out of her church, gently and lovingly talking about how her religion is bullshit. All day every day." For guys like Cooke, the Constitution is just an opportunity for obnoxious thought experiments that never apply to themselves.
