Stretching the First Admendment

By DICK TARPLEY

For such a simple, straightforward statement of law, the First Amendment to the Constitution has acquired legal interpretations that sometimes seem strange and unfair.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's difficult to consider how that language could be improved. Most Americans would say that expresses their own viewpoint. It protects rights of both the majority and the minorities. Some court interpretations, however, upset the patriotic, peace-loving mainstream.

Last month, the court ruled, in effect, that people could be harassed up close and personal by persons who disagree with their views or their actions - even if those actions are legal. That, the court said, was a protection of the free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't mention harassment.

Whether one is against abortion or pro-choice, he or she should be concerned about the decision that allows demonstrators to loudly condemn both pregnant women and abortion clinic workers from close proximity - not 15 feet away as a trial court judge had ruled was necessary to protect people from being harassed.

In the original court ruling, two demonstrators could approach more closely unless or until the clinic worker or patient asked them to stop. Others had to stay 15 feet away.

The 8-1 decision authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist outlawed any restrictions except within 15 feet of the doorway or driveway. That portion of the trial judge's ruling was upheld by a 6-3 vote, with arch-conservatives Scalia and Thomas and slightly-more moderate Kennedy voting against restrictions anywhere.

"The floating buffer zones (along sidewalks before reaching the driveway or entrance) prevent (demonstrators) - except for two sidewalk counselors while they are tolerated by the targeted individual - from communicating a message from a normal conversational distance or handing leaflets to people entering or leaving the clinics who are walking on public sidewalks," Rehnquist said.

"Leafletting and commenting on matters of public concern are classic forms of speech that lie at the heart of the First Amendment," he said.

This ruling suggests that an owner of a business could be surrounded by protesters on his way to work, on his way home, attending a meeting, or out for a stroll. The same for a school teacher, a preacher, a life insurance salesman or an Air Force general or any of the rest of us who angers some constituency or even a single complainant.

The latter persons, of course, are less likely to encounter demonstrators angry enough to devote their time to such harassment. Few subjects stir the emotions as strongly as abortion. But the ruling seems to suggest that even the protection given Jackie Onassis from the constant presence of a stalking photographer wherever she went was unlawful. California laws against panhandling, now in litigation, also would seem to be in danger.

To me, the guarantee of free speech allows a person to express his feelings without fear of punishment. Comments may be humiliating or abusive, but not libelous or legally slanderous. Let him make speeches, write letters, demonstrate publicly, and target political opponents at the polls. But not in others' faces, at least not continuously. Surely, that exceeds the role of free expression.

The First Amendment needs no revision. It expresses itself as simply and accurately as can be written. But free speech, regardless of how righteous our arguments, shouldn't trample on others' rights to live peaceably and without continuous in-person abuse.