Federal appeals court bars enforcement of picketing ordinance.
In a 2-1 opinion on January 12, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit prohibited enforcement of a ban on picketing "before or about" a residence or dwelling of an individual in Upper Arlington, Ohio.  Anti-choice protestors filed suit in late 1992, arguing that the city's interpretation of the ordinance to include activity beyond an area "solely in front of a particular residence" unconstitutionally infringed on their right to free expression.  US District Court Judge George Smith issued a preliminary injunction in August 1993, limiting enforcement of the picketing ban to within two houses on either side of the targeted residence.  Ruling in Vittitow vs. City of Upper Arlington, the appellate court rejected the district court's attempt to narrow the focus of the ordinance, finding that US Supreme Court decisions in Frisby vs. Schultz and Madsen vs. Women's Health Center required that residential picketing restrictions be more carefully drawn by legislative bodies to ban "conduct that unreasonably interferes with the privacy of the home and does not serve a reasonable communicative purpose."  The dissenting opinion criticized the appellate court's narrow interpretation of Frisby vs. Madsen, asserting that targeted residential picketing can infringe on the right to residential privacy "even when the picketers are not standing on the sidewalk adjacent to a person's property."
D000028:Abortion, Induced; D000569:Americas; D019049:Developed Countries; D006806:Human Rights; D007603:Jurisprudence; D007878:Legislation as Topic; D009656:North America; D009820:Ohio; D011057:Politics; D011639:Public Opinion; D014481:United States
Americas; Anti-abortion Groups; Court Decision; Developed Countries; Human Rights; Interest Groups; Legislation; North America; Northern America; Ohio; Political Factors; United States