>Traumatizing a young woman is not what Ghandi would do.

But that is actually something that Gandhi (you spelled his name wrong, BTW) would do. There's a large body of evidence that he'd force young girls to sleep naked in the same bed as him in order for the him to test the limits and abilities of his chastity vows.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertai…
http://ofmi.org/gandhis-sexual-abuse-of-gr…
http://creative.sulekha.com/the-mahatma-ga…

Jesus Shit Balls, this article is just full of painfully obvious mistakes. Hate speech IS protected under the First Amendment. To quote from Wikipedia, "Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#C…

When Wikipedia and not the US Constitution is being used to measure whether or not hate speech is protected, I start to question humanity. It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law to prohibit someone from being a dick", but yet, people are dicks. In regards to Pro-Lifers protesting around an abortion clinic, and wanting to eliminate the distance already established, it just seems to me that they really do want to block other peoples' choices and that may "lead to imminent hate violence" (as the above commenter so eloquently put it per Wikipedia). Since none of us has a crystal ball, I say the protesters should just stay back the 35 feet, give us the right to misspell Gandhi if we choose, and maybe, not use our Lord and Savior's name in vain. Amen!

"Traumatizing a young woman is not what Ghandi would do." Unless it's sleeping naked with his grand-nieces. Because, you know, he totally did that.

Also, hate speech *is* protected by the Constitution. See R.A.V. vs City of St. Paul.

Man, I'm getting plagiarized 4 comments in. I'm the best!

You can't plagiarize the reporting of a fact, Graham. At most, I echoed your sentiments, which I'm sure you're not used to, but the assertion that I plagiarized you suggests that I read your comments before I post my own. I don't.

International law > A national constitution? (popcorn.gif)

don't even read the comments before you comment?

weak, I don't even read the articles before I comment.

Barbara, international law does not trump national law in the US, or really anywhere else that often. Take a look at the countries who signed and ratified the ICCPR, and tell me how well Article 17 is being enforced in places like Uganda and Russia for example.

I can't imagine any US court eliminating an American freedom in favor of an international law, especially one that isn't enforced against more egregious offenders. Any politician who relegates American jurisprudence in favor of the international variety is sure to lose, and any judge who wants to put America's Constitution second behind international statutes won't make it past traffic court in his/her career.

blah blah blah cunt blah

i love this article but hate that you made me do math to figure that 6 & 1/2 barbaras into 35 means your 5 foot 4 1/2.

The distance requirement could be a valid "time, place, manner" restriction - it would keep the protesters far enough away from the entrance to prevent it from being blocked, but allow the protesters to make their views known.

Be very careful with the "time, place, manner" restriction,because the city loves to use this to mean "we must pepper-spray all the liberal protesters".

Article with its heart (probably) in the right place. So many major fails: gendered slur in headline (thanks, because gendered slurs are so progressive) and identifying the 'clinics' as the entity whose safety is threatened. Nope. After that I quit reading. Christ.