Court Ruling on Picketing Homes
Paul Greenberg (“In the Spirit of ‘88, Freedom of Speech Is Great, but Not Outside Somebody’s Home,” Op-Ed Page, July 11) spuriously defines the picketing of an abortionist’s home by an anti-abortion group as an exercise in free speech. Arguing that the physician should be “held accountable” for his political ideas, Greenberg betrays the true nature of the picketing: an exercise in punitive harassment. By prohibiting demonstrations at private residences, he says, the Supreme Court “attempts to distinguish between ideas that are directed at the general public--they’re still constitutional--and those that are intrusive.” Not so. What the court addressed was not the idea of abortion, but the pressure tactic by members of Christian Action Council in attempting to humiliate and annoy the physician and, by the very fact of their own intrusive presence, to render him persona non grata in his neighborhood. Even without violence, singling out one person for persecution in this manner is the action of a mob.
FREYA SMALLWOOD
La Jolla
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
