- Legal News Updates
- Law Center
- Legal Business
- Court News Center
- Law Firm News
- Legal Interviews
- Headline News
- Political and Legal
- Practice Focuses
- Legal Spotlight
- Events & Seminars
- Legal Marketing
- Court Watch
- Immigration Law
- Media Center
- Justice Stories
- Court: Man can't be retried for murder after mistrial ruling
- Michigan Democrats back Nessel for state attorney general
- Question of sales tax on online purchases goes to high court
- Supreme Court again refuses to hear Blagojevich appeal
- Court hears case alleging unconstitutional 6th District gerrymander
- Maryland redistricting case comes before Supreme Court
- Courts weighing numerous challenges to political boundaries
- Arkansas wants court to dissolve stay for death row prisoner
- TransCanada doesn't have to pay landowner attorneys
- Martin Shkreli cries in court, is sentenced to 7 years for securities fraud
The court reversed the district court's ruling that the speech was disruptive and violated a state penal code.
Judge Pregerson said the code, if applied to the aborted fetus photos, would "appear to be just the kind of accession to the heckler's veto outlawed by the case law."
Members of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform drove a truck displaying enlarged pictures of first-term aborted fetuses around the perimeter of Dodson Middle School in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., in order to "discourage teenage abortion."
The school called the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, and officers stopped the truck, searched it and ordered the driver to take the "Reproductive Choice Campaign" elsewhere. One deputy allegedly explained that the protest violated a state penal code, and that the anti-abortionists had to leave because they were "driving these pictures around the school with offensive language, and ... scaring kids."
The protesters sued the sheriff's department, the assistant principal of the school and several individual officers, claiming the defendants unconstitutionally suppressed their speech under the guise of enforcing a penal code.
The appellate court expressed "serious concerns about the constitutionality of the statute as applied," but ultimately did not rule on its constitutionality. The court found that the code prohibiting disruptive speech did not apply to the plaintiffs, because it restricts the manner - not the content - of disruptive speech.
The court rejected the argument that the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the recipients of the message were children, made the protest disruptive.
Legal News Media
Legal News Organization press is the top headline legal news provider for lawyers and legalprofessionals. Read law articles and breaking news from law firm's across the United States to get the latest updates. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal News Media as a service to the internet
community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.