The Bill of Rights was appended to the Constitution. It was intended to ensure that the Democrtic process could not be stifled. The framers recognized that the right to speak one's mind freely and to assemble were intiregal to successfully maintaining a democracratic government.

They did not envision that the right to free speech meant that one citizen has a right to block another citizen's path and impede their rights to pursue their own legal objectives. They did not envision this as an entitlement to scream one's views at someone else, because the speaker disapproves of somene's personal choices. We all have a right to speak our mind freely and to assemble, but a healthy Democracy does not require that this happen in another citizen's face. It was intended to ensure that people could speak freely about issues and disagree with the government without fear of government retailation.

The Supreme Court Justices (who are appointed government officials) believe's that they have a right to use the whole huge Courtyard out front of the Court as a buffer zone. Justice Robert's says he sees no problem with the protesters in front of Clinics who just want to speak with their fellow citizens. But if we just want to speak to our fellow citizens on the Supreme Court (who make decisions affecting our lives), he sees a problem. Is this hypocracy?

Justice Robert's who is in sympathy with the anti-choice protestors characterizes blocking paths, screaming, assault and murder as just wanting to talk to fellow citizen's. When someone insists on speaking to me and I don't want to talk with them, it is harassment! It is not free speech. I also should have the right to not listen and persue my business.

Our Country does limit freedom of assembly from some places. Most assemblies on public property require permits (which are not always approved). When TC NOW was picketing Hobby Lobby we were forced to picket from outside their parking lot, even though this area is open to the public. When Bush didn't want to be bothered by protesters, they set up free speech zones. These were far away from him and the media. This same tactic was used frequently with the Occupy Wall Street protests. Apparently free speech zones are constitutional to marginalize left wing protestors from elected officials.

The anti-choice supporters are free to speak their mind through mailings, media, rallies and various other venues. They can reach out to women who are considering their choices about a pregnancy (in fact various organizations already do). They already had a free speech zone that included the whole country except within a 35 ft radius of a clinic). This is a far larger free speech zone than Occupy Wall Street or the Bush protestors had. This zone is only necessary becasue they persist in harassing and violating individuals who wish to enter the clinics.

Shame on the activist Justices (many who claim to be strict constructionists) for extending the right of free speech to the right to harass other citizens of whose actions you disapprove. Shame on the Justices who (while still believing in buffer zones) ruled out buffer zones to protect the health, safety, and free access of women seeking healthcare and providers. Shame on the 4 liberal judges, who can't connect the dots and realize that free speech is not always absolute. There is not a right of free speech to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. In the same sense, free speech should not be extended to enable harassment, intimidation, assault, and murder.

If buffer zones are inherently unconstitutional, then theirs is too! Perhaps this should be challenged and taken to the Supreme Court.