Frisby v. Schultz, 27 June 1988.
The plaintiffs, anti-abortion protesters, challenged a Brookfield Wisconsin ordinance making it "unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual" and declaring that the primary purpose of the ban is to "protec[t] and preserv[e] the home" through assurance "that members of the community enjoy in their homes . . . a feeling of well-being, tranquillity, and privacy."  They claimed that the ordinance violated their First Amendment rights of free speech.  The Court reversed lower court rulings finding the ordinance unconstitutional.  It held that the ban on picketing did not ban all picketing in residential areas, but, rather, only "focused picketing" taking place solely in front of a specific residence, and that the ordinance left ample means of alternative channels of communication.  It concluded that the ordinance served a significant government interest of protecting residential privacy and that there was no constitutional right to force speech into the home of an unwilling listener.  In 1988, US courts reached the following decisions with respect to the activities of anti-abortion protesters:  1) action charging anti-abortionists with conspiracy under federal laws is allowed (Portland Feminist Women's Health Center vs. Advocates for Life, US District Court, D. Oregon, 28 June 1988 [712 F.Supp. 165]); 2) action charging anti-abortionists with conspiracy under federal laws not allowed, but action charging anti-abortionists with violation of racketeering laws allowed (Feminist Women's Health Center vs. Roberts, US District Court, W.D. Washington, 11 March 1988 [1988 US Dist. Lexis 16325]); 3) action charging anti-abortionists with violation of racketeering laws allowed (Northeast Women's Center, Inc. vs. McMonagle, US District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 31 March 1988 [689 F.Supp. 465]); and 4) action charging anti-abortionists with conspiracy under federal laws and with violation of racketeering laws is allowed (Roe vs. Operation Rescue, US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 19 December 1988 [1988 US District Lexis 14484]).
D000028:Abortion, Induced; D000569:Americas; D019049:Developed Countries; D005193:Family Planning Services; D006806:Human Rights; D007603:Jurisprudence; D009656:North America; D011057:Politics; D011639:Public Opinion; D014481:United States
Abortion, Induced--legal aspects; Americas; Anti-abortion Groups--legal aspects; Court Decision; Developed Countries; Family Planning; Fertility Control, Postconception; Human Rights; Interest Groups; North America; Northern America; Political Factors; United States