Talk:Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York

Clarity
It's unclear from the article precisely what restrictions were declared constitutional and which unconstitutional. Could someone familiar with the case make appropriate edits? Roscelese (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The principle 8-1 judgement was declaring the "floating buffer zone" to be unconstitutional. The one discenting vote on this point actually argued the Schenck didn't know how to properly defend and express his 1st Amendment rights. The secondary issue of the "fixed buffer zones" was, however, ruled to be constitutional (as is accurately described in the article). On this point, the judges were more divided (6-3) where 3 judges argued (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas) argued in their partial dissent (described as a concur/dissent) that the "fixed buffer zone" was also unconsititutional. The interpretation of what the principle ruling was pertains to the charges against Schenck (of which he was appealing, and was therefore the "petitioner"). He was not charged with violating a "fixed buffer zone" but rather with the "floating buffer zone." The clarification of the "fixed buffer zones" being constitutional was deemed important to prevent their primary decision about the "floating buffer zone" to be too broadly interpreted (again on this second point there wasn't as much agreement). Because of the unusual concur/dissent opinions, this case is more confusing, but I think we need to work hard to keep this explanatin a NPOV for purposes of historical accuracy. I hope this helps. Frankgyn (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fixed zones were not a "secondary" issue - sources indicate that the upholding of the fixed zones was the most important part of the ruling. I'm not sure how to tweak the infobox so that we indicate the unanimous court for part, the 8-1 for part, and the 6-3 for part (it might not even be possible to indicate that with the infobox), but that's a very flimsy and irrelevant justification for removing cited material and inserting inaccuracies. Don't do it again, please. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, you are mistaken. I recommend you actually read the majority opinion for this case (if you know how to do so, it would be best to actually have the text of this opinion clearly and directly linked). In the text of the opinion itself ( see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1065.ZO.html), after clarifying that the gov't does have an interest in the injunction, the next statement is a rejection of the floating buffer zone "We strike down the floating buffer zones". Only after this point is further developed does the opinion state "We uphold the fixed buffer zones." I beg of you to cease with your "flimsy and irrelevant justification for removing cited material and inserting inaccuracies." The public deserves better this. Please correct the inaccuracies in your latest revision to reflect this clarification I have pointed out. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, I will be obligated to do it for you.Frankgyn (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We prioritize the interpretation of reliable secondary sources over users' personal interpretation. It's also funny that you're whining about how the opinion isn't linked, since I keep correcting the link and you keep reverting my correction. Your temper tantrum about how the New York Times is biased but your unsourced personal opinion is objective is likewise amusing, but ultimately inappropriate for Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the most NPOV and best source I can find for the full opinion http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/519bv.pdf Let me know how we could best put this in the article. Frankgyn (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We prioritize the interpretation of reliable secondary sources over users' personal interpretation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, the New York Times is generally considered to meet this site's sourcing requirements. If you believe otherwise, I would strongly suggest you raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. Secondly, if you consider the New York Times to be a "biased and weak source" for the fact that patients were often violently harassed by anti-abortion protesters, perhaps you'll accept the word of William Rehnquist, who was both Chief Justice of the SCOTUS and an abortion opponent. During the case, Rehnquist decried the "harassment and intimidation of patients", noting that "volunteers who attempted to escort patients past protesters... were sometimes elbowed, grabbed, or spit on", and that "if the women continued toward the clinics and did not respond positively to the counselors, peaceful efforts at persuasion often devolved into 'in your face' yelling, and sometimes into pushing, shoving, and grabbing." Looking solely at the Supreme Court's written decision, on the very first page, in the certiorari, the Court found that protesters had disrupted the clinic by "surrounding, crowding, jostling, grabbing, pushing, shoving, and yelling and spitting at women entering the clinics and their escorts", and that "the local police were unable to respond effectively to the protests due, in part, to the fact that the defendants harassed them verbally and by mail... Also harassed were people who testified against the protesters and 'those who invoke[d] legal process against' the protesters." The Court further opined, in its majority decision, that "we have before us a record that shows physically abusive conduct, harassment of the police that hampered law enforcement, and the tendency of even peaceful conversations to devolve into aggressive and sometimes violent conduct." If you continue to doubt that the protests in question were aggressive and sometimes violent, perhaps you could let us know what sort of source would be necessary to convince you otherwise. MastCell Talk 21:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is an interested side note that J. Rehnquist (considered an abortion foe by many) would take at face value such accusations of violent harassment; no doubt he was sincerely striving to exhibit a NPOV. Since the petitioner in the case (Rev. Schenck) was accused of nothing more violent than handing a woman a bible (to which she thanked him), his counsel had no need to address such broad and generalized accusations made elsewhere against other parties. Furthermore, this case was argued in terms of 1st Amendment's freedom of speech provisions. Again the point here for this article on a Supreme Court decision is not who believed or stated what about supposed violent harassment committed. The key points pertain to the actual arguments made and the subsequent judgments made thereafter, and this should be the thrust of the wiki article. In summary, this case was not a hearing or fact-finding session on whether or not "anti-abortion" protesters engaged in violent harassment. As close legal friend related, this judge does have a unique tendency for long-winded commentaries proceeding the actual opinions/judgments of the court. Unfortunately, the more we say, the greater our statistical probability of erring in accuracy and relevancy. On that note, I'll end my response...for now. Frankgyn (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll sum up all your comments on this page in one sentence: "The SCOTUS opinion is the only reliable source, except when it says something that makes my political allies look bad." Come back when you feel like editing in compliance with policy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, such personal attacks are regrettably common from you, an unnecessary distraction from productive dialogue, and are a disservice to the goals of wikipedia, perhaps you should come back when you are ready to edit in compliance with policy. Be warned, if you persist in such behavior you should be blocked. Frankgyn (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's focus, then. You dismissed the New York Times as a "weak and biased" source, and suggested that only the Supreme Court decision itself was an appropriate source. So I quoted the Court decision, and you dismissed it because... well, I'm not totally clear on your rationale. Because Rehnquist had a tendency toward prolixity, in the opinion of a "close legal friend" of yours? Because you personally think Rehnquist (and the 5 other Justices who signed on to his opinion) was wrong? Maybe you can help me here, since you didn't answer my final question: could you let us know what sort of source would meet your criteria? Right now it feels like the goalposts keep moving. MastCell Talk 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 Hon
— Assignment last updated by Melanael (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)