About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

29 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 553 (1995-1996)
Rules of Engagement for Cultural Wars: Regulating Conduct, Unprotected Speech, and Protected Expression in Anti-abortion Protests

handle is hein.journals/davlr29 and id is 563 raw text is: Rules of Engagement for Cultural Wars: Regulating Conduct, Unprotected Speech, and Protected Expression in Anti-abortion Protests Alan E. Brown.stein* In important respects, freedom of speech reinforces virtually every other important right protected by the Constitution. This is as true for privacy rights and reproductive freedom as it is for the right to racial equality and the right to practice one's reli- gion without state interference. To cite only one obvious exam- ple, freedom of speech directly facilitates the right to have an abortion by invalidating laws that prohibit the advertising of abortion services.' Despite this obvious and important truism, there is also no question that expressive activity in some circumstances may inter- fere seriously with the right of women to choose to have an abortion.2 To the extent that the First Amendment can be as- serted to protect expression of this kind, courts must confront a conflict between constitutionally protected interests. Complex issues of constitutional law arise when the First Amendment is raised as a shield to protect expressive activity that burdens reproductive autonomy. This complexity has several sources. First, it is never a simple task to reconcile or balance competing interests of recognized importance when two rights are ostensibly placed in conflict. * Professor of Law, University of California, Davis. B.A. 1969, Antioch College; J.D. 1977, Harvard University. I wish to thank Vikram Amar, James Weinstein, and Leslie Jacobs for reading drafts of this article and for providing helpful criticism. I also want to thank Stephanie Hamilton and Jennifer Holman for their work as research assistants on this pro- ject. , Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975). Technically speaking, of course, private expressive activity can not interfere with the exercise of a constitutional right since rights are only protected against state action. See infra note 145 and accompanying text. Having dutifully reported this truism, however, I declare myself free to describe expressive activity as interfering with the exercise of consti- tutional rights in the conventionally accepted, non-technical sense of interfering with an interest that is protected by the Constitution against state abridgment. See generaUy Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 206 (1992) (upholding content-discriminatory prohibition of distribution of private political campaign material within 100 feet of polling place as neces- sary to protect right to vote against fraud and intimidation).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most