7 ms·

Free speech does not allow the right to do harm. We can debate where exactly that line is, but in my book protesting right outside of a clinic is harassment.

• nailer 3y ago
  A similar argument could be used for environmental protestors blocking a highway (the reason the bill was created) - they're interfering with someone else's right to travel.
  • hypertele-Xii 3y ago
    Are the abortion protestors blocking access to the clinic? That's not the sentiment I got. They don't interfere with anyone's right to abortion, they are expressing their dissent about it (presumably on grounds of a child's right to be born).
    • nailer 3y ago
      Good question. Sometimes. In the US (but not the UK) I’ve seen images of women being jostled on the way into the clinic.
• hypertele-Xii 3y ago
  If you can't protest a practice outside that very practice, how are you supposed to effectively protest anything?
  • Timon3 3y ago
    Why does the protest have to be right in front? Isn't a march through the city just as, if not more, effective to get your voices heard? Of course you won't be able to terrify vulnerable young women, but it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing!
    • fqyzj 3y ago
      If you are mentally capable of doing something then you should be mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong - it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing, also. Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable.
      • Timon3 3y ago
        > If you are mentally capable of doing something then you should be mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong - it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing, also. Would you be okay if, for the rest of your life, protesters stood in front of your home and shouted "die for breathing, die for breathing"? Presumably not, right? Although you're mentally capable of breathing, which should mean you're mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong? > Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable. Can you explain why? I don't see how any agency is removed from them. Pregnancy itself makes women more vulnerable, and someone going through a very hard decision will be impacted even more. Whose agency did I just try to remove? Or could it be that you're just projecting?
        • fqyzj 3y ago
          By definition, breathing and killing are complete opposites. I wouldn't like it if people shouted slogans in front of my house but they have a right to it. If women are in a vulnerable, hormonal state maybe they shouldn't be the ones making these decisions. Either they can make the decision and go through the consequences, or they can't. There's no middle ground of doing something and then having people who disagree with what you did silenced.
          • Timon3 3y ago
            > By definition, breathing and killing are complete opposites. So? Did your earlier messages include anything on breathing or killing? There were no specifiers. > I wouldn't like it if people shouted slogans in front of my house but they have a right to it. Alright, awesome on you for consistency! I don't think they have the right, and I'm lucky to live somewhere that also wouldn't think so. > If women are in a vulnerable, hormonal state maybe they shouldn't be the ones making these decisions. Why are you trying to take agency away from women? Didn't you just say this kind of behavior is despicable?
• tjpnz 3y ago
  No problem with abortion but protesting outside an abortion clinic isn't doing harm; not in the criminal sense at least unlike all the domestic abuse the MET have failed to prosecute.
• selfhoster11 3y ago
  Protesting, or verbal abuse? Because I draw the line at the latter.