From: wasg@rice.edu (Eric Salituro)
Newsgroups: houston.general
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:41:44 GMT
Followup-To: houston.general,tx.general,tx.politics
Organization: Rice University Computer Science

In article <96gqqB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us>, gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A.
Kennedy) wrote:
> 
> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
> 
> > We're not talking about something out of left field here, folks.
> > Restraining orders of the type "you must remain 100 feet from XYZ" are
> > placed every day. Usually they're placed for things like, e.g.,
> > wife-battering husbands who conduct campaigns of intimidation against their
> > ex-wives, and other things of that nature. It's clear that OR was engaged
> > in a campaign of intimidation against Planned Parenthood, and thus Planned
> > Parenthood had the same right as a battered wife to get such a restraining
> > order.
> 
> Your talking here about a totally different thing. The type order 
> you refer to is directed against *one* person, by name. The order 
> issued by O'Neal (sp) could have been applied to anyone, including 
> you, who happened to be walking on the same sidewalk as the OR 
> people at the same time. It would have then been up to *you* to 
> prove that you were not a part of OR! 

No. Actually, it is not a different thing. Perhaps if you looked at the
restraining order, you wouldn't be so quick to make this incorrect
statement. Planned Parenthood was required to name who the order was to
restrain. The original TRO listed just about every Pro-life organization in
the US, about 4 named individuals and the "10,000 John Does". TROs do not
have to be against a single individual.

The likelihood of you getting in trouble for walking on the same sidewalk
as OR was not likely to get you in trouble, other than if you were
demonstrating pro-choice. (The police would send you to the other side of
the street, but that's all.) The TRO also specified certain things you had
to due to violate the law. Walking on the sidewalk was not one of them.

It also would not be up to you to prove you were one of them. It would be
up to Planned Parenthood to prove that were demonstrating, and had
knowledge of the TRO. When a couple of OR's leaders were hauled into court,
PP and the HDC weren't able to prove they were leading a demonstration, so
O'Neill let them go.

> The order issued in Houston was far to broad, and did not require 
> *any* illegal act to be comitted before it was violated. Look at 
> the order issued by the Judge in New York during the Democratic 
> Convention, that is an example of how these orders should be done. 
> When an order allows a person who has no past history of 
> violations to be jailed and fined for nothing more than standing 
> on the sidewalk with others who hold similar views, which this one 
> did, it's unconstitutional to me!

A TRO doesn't require an illegal act to be committed before a violation has
occurred. In fact, that would render a TRO or an injunction pointless. If a
illegal act has been committed, they should be arrested.

I think everyone will agree with your point that a TRO shouldn't be issued
to prevent someone from lawfully standing on the sidewalk or exercising
their free speech rights. However, it is also perfectly reasonable to
impose restrictions upon the manner and place of that exercise, when those
people have previously shown a willingness to hinder the rights of others.