Kirsten Powers questions liberals’ defense of the Massachusetts law barring protesters from entrances to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in McCullen v. Coakley, a case which challenges the law.
“Now, if you are an abortion-rights supporter you may still be thinking, ‘I don’t want anti-abortion advocates bothering women going into abortion clinics, so I’m okay with this.’ That’s an understandable sentiment. But even if this law was constitutional—and it isn’t—one has to consider the implications of accepting the government exercising such a broad power that infringes on constitutionally protected free speech.”
“Ironically, a law championed by liberals could end up having dire implications for many liberal causes.”
“If the Supreme Court were to uphold the Massachusetts law, it’s not hard to imagine businesses lobbying to create zones where union members are not allowed to speak, but workers for the business are.”
“The first principle here is that the government does not have the right to control the content of speech, no matter how uncomfortable that speech may make certain people. Abandon that principle and your free speech may be next.”Save to Favorites