Mccullen V. Coakley Case Analysis
Argument
A. THE ARA DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE ARA IS CONTENT/VIEWPOINT NEUTRAL
The ARA does not violate the constitution because it is content and viewpoint neutral. It is content and viewpoint neutral because it does not restrict speech. The ARA was passed to stop unwelcome communications that stop others from practicing their own rights. The ARA never mentioned that a person could not voice their opinions, only that they can not impose their ideas or make another person go along with their ideas. The case McCullen v. Coakley, the Court examined a law passed in Massachusetts that is different from the one in our case. The Massachusetts law narrowly tailored speech but the court found that it was content neutral. …show more content…
In McCullen, the court states that the place the speech is given is the key detail. If a person is within the buffer zone then they are violating the act. Ms. Mendoza violated the Act when she entered the buffer zone and when she entered the floating buffer zone. The opposing would argue that the volunteers and people who work in the clinic does not have a content/viewpoint neutral view on this matter because they work at the clinic. To refute this claim, this is not true. The people who work in the clinic have no choice, but to go to work and know that they can not protest against the opposing. The only thing they can do, is their job and help assist people inside the clinic. They know that it is not their job to argue with protesters. All they have to do is ignore the protesters. The people might not even agree with the practices at their job, but it is their job.
B. THE ARA DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE ARA IS NARROWLY …show more content…
The precedent that could be set is that protesters who protest for any cause need a regulation or something that ensures that no physical altercations break out. The ARA was put in place to make sure that a person does not get to override someone else’s rights. A protester against abortion or against any other cause should not force their idea on a woman who is trying to get an abortion or people in general exercising their constitutional rights. What is the fairness in that? Everyone has a freedom of speech, but others should not try to stop others from exercising their rights. A person can’t say the other is wrong or fight a person to join their side or that their side is right. A person can try to use facts and try to educate a person of their viewpoint. People are not entitled to have their viewpoints be received by people. A person does not have to agree with you on your viewpoint. You can’t change a viewpoint of another. People have their own ways of
A. THE ARA DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE ARA IS CONTENT/VIEWPOINT NEUTRAL
The ARA does not violate the constitution because it is content and viewpoint neutral. It is content and viewpoint neutral because it does not restrict speech. The ARA was passed to stop unwelcome communications that stop others from practicing their own rights. The ARA never mentioned that a person could not voice their opinions, only that they can not impose their ideas or make another person go along with their ideas. The case McCullen v. Coakley, the Court examined a law passed in Massachusetts that is different from the one in our case. The Massachusetts law narrowly tailored speech but the court found that it was content neutral. …show more content…
In McCullen, the court states that the place the speech is given is the key detail. If a person is within the buffer zone then they are violating the act. Ms. Mendoza violated the Act when she entered the buffer zone and when she entered the floating buffer zone. The opposing would argue that the volunteers and people who work in the clinic does not have a content/viewpoint neutral view on this matter because they work at the clinic. To refute this claim, this is not true. The people who work in the clinic have no choice, but to go to work and know that they can not protest against the opposing. The only thing they can do, is their job and help assist people inside the clinic. They know that it is not their job to argue with protesters. All they have to do is ignore the protesters. The people might not even agree with the practices at their job, but it is their job.
B. THE ARA DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE ARA IS NARROWLY …show more content…
The precedent that could be set is that protesters who protest for any cause need a regulation or something that ensures that no physical altercations break out. The ARA was put in place to make sure that a person does not get to override someone else’s rights. A protester against abortion or against any other cause should not force their idea on a woman who is trying to get an abortion or people in general exercising their constitutional rights. What is the fairness in that? Everyone has a freedom of speech, but others should not try to stop others from exercising their rights. A person can’t say the other is wrong or fight a person to join their side or that their side is right. A person can try to use facts and try to educate a person of their viewpoint. People are not entitled to have their viewpoints be received by people. A person does not have to agree with you on your viewpoint. You can’t change a viewpoint of another. People have their own ways of