westboro clowns sink to a new low

See post above.

 

That case says *exactly* what I say it says.

The Hill v. Colorado case specifically upheld "protest" as a content-neutral description of a type of speech.

 

Two key selections from the decision in Hill v. Colorado

 

No. It really says what I said it says.

At issue is the constitutionality of a 1993 Colorado statute that regulates speech-related conduct within 100 feet of the entrance to any health care facility. The specific section of the statute that is challenged, Colo. Rev. Stat. §18—9—122(3) (1999), makes it unlawful within the regulated areas for any person to “knowingly approach” within eight feet of another person, without that person’s consent, “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person … .”1 Although the statute prohibits speakers from approaching unwilling listeners, it does not require a standing speaker to move away from anyone passing by. Nor does it place any restriction on the content of any message that anyone may wish to communicate to anyone else, either inside or outside the regulated areas.

 

That's all accurate. But none of that proves your assertion that protest is a form of content and not a type of conduct.

 

Stephens is saying the "oral protest" language is superfluous to the law and non-essential, and that that is why it cannot be struck down for failure to maintain content neutrality. Stephens believes the crucial operative language in the law is the approaching and handing of anything, regardless of content.

Or, in other words, like I said above, if they can pray there they can protest there.

 

Hill v. Colorado is a horrible decision and a screeching example of judicial activism.

There is one reason and one reason alone why the justices voted the way they did to restrict speech, whatever legal gymnastics they may have used to get there: Because they were abortion protesters.

 

Proving they are nothing but attention whores, the Phelps cult agrees not to protest in exchange for radio interviews.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011202545.html

 

How you figure?

 

Nope. Those are manners of speech.

You can pray that God strikes down all the gays. You can pray that God strikes down the Westboro church. You can pray for anything. The content of the prayer is separate from the manner.

Same for protest. You can protest for or against anything. The act of protesting is not integral to the content of the speech.

So long as the law does not differentiate between different types of protest, it is regulating a manner and not content.

 

Look at the votes.

A bunch of justices who almost always vote for free speech vote against it here.

 

Yeah, I think you're just wrong.