City's viewpoint-based censorship scheme facing Supreme Court challenge
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to step into a fight over a city's viewpoint-based discrimination against pro-life speech, and at the same time overrule Hill v. Colorado, which in 2000 found that a ban on counseling individuals going to a health-care facility was content-neutral.
That fight, in fact, was highlighted by the fact police officers had to review the content of the speech occurring there to determine if it was covered by the law.
The new fight is being brought to the high court by Liberty Counsel, which is seeking to fix a mistaken judgment in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg.
In that dispute, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the city's ban on pro-life speech could be enforced against pro-life volunteers at a Planned Parenthood abortion business.
TRENDING: Lindsey Graham urges U.S. to blow up Iran's oil refineries if hostages harmed
It was in 2012 when the Harrisburg city council adopted the speech restriction that makes it "illegal to enter the buffer zone and have a one-on-one conversation about abortion with a person entering the abortion facility."
Liberty Counsel explained it represents Colleen Reilly and Becky Biter, "who engage in peaceful sidewalk counseling to encourage women to protect the life of their unborn children."
But the city has silenced them on more than 70 feet of public sidewalk in front of the Harrisburg Planned Parenthood.
Police, in fact, "ordered Reilly to move her sidewalk counseling beyond the buffer zone" when she was handing out literature and talking to clients coming into the office.
They threatened to cite her with an ordinance violation.
Liberty Counsel explained the problems with the court ruling:
During the litigation, the city presented two people to speak on its behalf regarding the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the ordinance – referred to as Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses. Both of the city’s 30(b)(6) witnesses testified that the ordinance prohibits pro-life speech regarding abortion inside the buffer zone, but other speech not about abortion is permitted. In addition, during a prior oral argument before the Third Circuit, the city’s attorney stated that passing out literature inside the buffer zone about the abortion clinic is prohibited but passing out literature about a law firm is permitted. There is no contradictory testimony in nearly 10 years of litigation about the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the ordinance being a content-based restriction on pro-life speech. Yet, the court wrote in its opinion that these enforcers who speak on behalf of the city 'misinterpreted' their own ordinance.
The goal for Liberty Counsel is to have Hill v. Colorado reversed, as courts have been using that "to categorize buffer-zone laws as content-neutral speech restrictions" in ways that distort the First Amendment.
"The city of Harrisburg clearly violated the First Amendment by enforcing a policy that prohibits pro-life speech but allows other speech within the buffer zone," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver. "There is no contradictory testimony in nearly 10 years of litigation about the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the ordinance being a content-based restriction on pro-life speech.
"However, the Third Circuit’s decision brushes off the undisputed testimony by saying these enforcers who speak on behalf of the city ‘misinterpreted’ their own ordinance."
IMPORTANT NOTE TO WND READERS: Believe it or not, today's high priests of climate-change apocalypse are correct in predicting that in just a few short years, the earth will become miserable, wretched and almost uninhabitable by human beings. But the grim future they envision won't come about because of "catastrophic climate change," but rather, because of the implementation of their completely insane and truly catastrophic agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment