Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Removed misleading edits and pro-abortion rhetoric, the NYT is a biased and weak source for such inflammatory and inaccurates statements as "protesters often violently harassed," NPOV needed here! |
|||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|LawsApplied= |
|LawsApplied= |
||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York''''', [[Case citation|519 U.S. 357]] (1997), was a case heard before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court |
'''''Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York''''', [[Case citation|519 U.S. 357]] (1997), was a case heard before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]. It ruled in an 8-1 decision that speech-free "floating buffer zones" around [[abortion clinics]] were unconstitutional. The Court held that although "fixed buffer zones" were constitutional, but "floating buffer zones" were not. |
||
[[Paul Schenck]] challenged a Federal District Court injunction that restricted "[[sidewalk counseling|sidewalk counselors]]" from approaching abortion clinic patients and others with [[Bible]]s, tracts and [[pro-life]] messages. |
[[Paul Schenck]] challenged a Federal District Court injunction that restricted "[[sidewalk counseling|sidewalk counselors]]" from approaching abortion clinic patients and others with [[Bible]]s, tracts and [[pro-life]] messages. The Court ruled in Schenck's favor, striking down the restrictions as a fundamental violation of the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
*[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/october96/abortion_10-16a.html PBS NewsHour: "Drawing the Line"] |
*[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/october96/abortion_10-16a.html PBS NewsHour: "Drawing the Line"] |
||
*[http:// |
*[http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1065.ZX1.html Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York] on [[Cornell Law]] |
||
*[http://www.casp.net/cases/schenck1.html Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York] on the California Anti-SLAPP Project |
|||
*[http://www.acljlife.org/ussc/Transcripts/Schenck%20Transcript.pdf Schenck v. Pro-Choice] October 16, 1996 |
|||
*[http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/prochoicenetwork.html Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York et al.] on the Boston College Free Speech Library |
*[http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/prochoicenetwork.html Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York et al.] on the Boston College Free Speech Library |
||
Revision as of 19:34, 28 March 2012
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York | |
---|---|
Argued October 16, 1996 Decided February 19, 1997 | |
Full case name | Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, et al. |
Citations | 519 U.S. 357 (more) 117 S. Ct. 855 |
Holding | |
The injunction provisions imposing "fixed buffer zone" limitations are constitutional, but the provisions imposing "floating buffer zone" limitations violate the First Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Rehnquist, joined by unanimous court |
Concur/dissent | Scalia, joined by Kennedy, Thomas |
Concur/dissent | Breyer |
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled in an 8-1 decision that speech-free "floating buffer zones" around abortion clinics were unconstitutional. The Court held that although "fixed buffer zones" were constitutional, but "floating buffer zones" were not.
Paul Schenck challenged a Federal District Court injunction that restricted "sidewalk counselors" from approaching abortion clinic patients and others with Bibles, tracts and pro-life messages. The Court ruled in Schenck's favor, striking down the restrictions as a fundamental violation of the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 519
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
References
Further reading
- Hostetler, Darrin Alan (1997). "Face-to-Face with the First Amendment: Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network and the Right to 'Approach and Offer' in Abortion Clinic Protests". Stanford Law Review. 50 (1). Stanford Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 1: 179–223. doi:10.2307/1229361. JSTOR 1229361.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|month=
and|coauthors=
(help)
External links
- PBS NewsHour: "Drawing the Line"
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York on Cornell Law
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York on the California Anti-SLAPP Project
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice October 16, 1996
- Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York et al. on the Boston College Free Speech Library