Supreme Court Precedents re Protestors leading up to Hill v. Colorado

1. Supreme Court Precedents re Protestors leading up to Hill v. Colorado • Intermediate Scrutiny • Law must be narrowly drawn to meet important gov’t interest and leave open ample alternatives of communication • Frisby v. Schultz: • Recognized residential privacy interest in being free from targeted protests (even if peaceful) because such protests are inherently invasive of residential privacy (akin to harassment) • Content neutral regulation is narrowly drawn (medium is the evil) and leaves open ample alternatives of communication because protestors are free to protest and communicate through other means in the neighborhood • Madsen & Schenck • Recognized privacy interest while in “public enclosed spaces” – freedom from invasive/noisy protests but not peaceful protests if could avert eyes/ears • Did not recognize general “right to be let alone” in public forum • Injunction was okay to extent was content-neutral and narrowly tailored BUT some provisions were not narrowly tailored to meet state interests

2. Hill v. Colorado – content-based or content-neutral • Colorado law bars knowing approaches w/in eight (8) feet of another person, without their consent, for the purpose of passing leaflets, counseling, displaying a sign or engaging in oral protest – Ban applies w/in 100 feet of any medical facility • Is this statute content-based or content-neutral? • Does it matter that the law was motivated by anti-abortion protests? • Does it matter that the “no approach” law is limited only to people who leaflet, have signs, or have a purpose of “protest, educating, or counseling?”

3. Hill v. Colorado – State Interests • Does the majority recognize a generalized right to be free from offensive speech while in a public forum as the dissenters’ suggest? • Should we recognize the right to be free from unwanted ideas in the public forum in some settings? What are the implications of recognizing a broader “privacy” right in the public forum? • Does this law leave open adequate alternatives for speakers?

4. Funeral Protests – the Oklahoma Statute • Law prevents all protests within 500 feet of any funeral service from one hour before to one hour after the service. State claims a privacy interest in protecting mourners at funerals. • Do mourners have a privacy interest at funerals? How would you describe it? Does this statute protect that interest or something broader? • Do all protests interfere with that privacy interest? • What privacy interest does the Court’s precedents support? • Are people attending a funeral service captive to such protests in the way that SCT seems to define “captivity” in its protestor cases? • Should we expand the notion of captive audience in these cases because of the nature of funerals? • If this statute isn’t up to snuff, what can be changed about it?