l the call and the court said that the massachusetts massachusetts has taken the quote extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers indeed it can be argued case but i think if you look at the decision in hill well the facts are somewhat different the one point that the supreme court made and hellebores colorado is that at eight feet people can talk in a normal conversational district i think the before she was complaining about what was there at the site how in the building you know to communicate with patients because absent the buffer zone she was getting blocked out by all these other people that were there were above them for how crucial i stuff and my point is that she's cheap she doesn't have to be any more than eight feet away from people and and she can certainly endeavor to do that prior to the time they get to the buffer zone i mean the point here know first time she might not know but but but the reality is you can just quite a distance you can walk prior to the time you reach the buggers up and she can walk she can walk right up to the buffer zone from the south similate sidewalk counsel rosemary baron who was a plaintiff in an earlier litigation which was voluntarily dismissed testified that she was not bothered by the buffer zone and this continued to counsel patients this is more actively different than the situation in well i think one of the factors you have to look at and this record in this case did not a list a quote in brunei did on a case that's coming up on appeal as well is one of the governmental interests here you know with the district court said nothing about serve those interests and hill will what does your prison terms of consideration of less all kind of i know you don't have to have the least alternative restriction but you do have to sure that you considered less restrictive alternatives or rule them out as being ineffective absolutely right and the way this developed this problem developed around the site in october to a two thousand and thirteen up until march when the six month period before the buffer zone was adopted initial the initial reaction was to increase police presence and that was done and that was offensive to a degree that was very expensive but the city said it was right no no we did that that was no what what would i not do it on hold because because there are conflicting considerations here you know we had a situation where we had increased police presence whatever we thought there was going to be a to people sometimes or resolve issues there and whatever we had police driving by the site more frequently particularly on saturday mornings getting out of the corps we're trying to help the clinic get all to the police officers to work for the clinic nobody wanted to think that this was not something that people wanted to do most importantly i think police were attempting to take information from people who don't file complaints but that just wouldn't happen and going out on a limb and identifying somebody as an aggressor or somebody has done something terrible and then wind up on that list and that's what people were not willing to do as a matter of fact you know little grant who was the city council president said that you know that we were a nuclear arms race to the bottom and on a saturday morning when a volunteer escrowed was in tears terrified or finally a complaint i knew in my heart my head and god that we were said not days away from somebody getting hurt there were six complaints the proof that has been submitted by my adversaries with respect of us say there were six complaints and that proves the people willing to come forward well that actually proves my point three of those complaints were six months before the situation got bad in an october and the other cases none of them involved a volunteer a lot of them involved a patient one valda a volunteer rescuer it was a male escort and he only was responding because there was a complaint also being filed against him but a protester had pushed him so at and what i find it reprehensible is the argument of the characterization of these people's legitimate fears of reprisals which really drove everything here which you couldn't force was unless to the premiere of the eight foot buffer zone to the right to go away if you walk at the street line at the end of the driveway to the facility i think you are that's just to the right of the driveway ok get to the right of the road yes if she walks out into the street just walk out into the street it's a busy street no dispute about that there are frequently cars parked along the curb in the wintertime or snow piled up on the curb this court said when ever the government makes it more difficult to engage in this sort of traditional first and an activity in a traditional public form it is a significant and especially significant first amendment burden and that's the reality here i understand why the city likes to talk about this is an eight foot buffer zone but it's actually far more than that yes eight feet isn't really a conversational distance if you're having a normal conversation but that's not the reality of what turk was doing was not the reality of what the supreme court described a sidewalk hellsing in a column it's somebody trying to take a close up i contacted one of those he says some of th that was not reliable to any extent by the supreme court in a comma it was simply it was referred to when describing the basis of massachusetts is a war that they look to hill as i suspect they will work it here too but i if we accept what massachusetts says about we tried of the things and they didn't work other laws would be affected even if we do that the fact that this applies to all clinics in massachusetts at all times when the problem arises that on the one makes it not narrowly tailored so we can leave aside the separate over bestiality shared the bread of eat of the ordinance is still a significant part of the now tailoring argument so it's crucial i think it's beginning to get straight exactly the conversation is still moving and by the time she circuit navigates the the radius the rectangle the other radius person is probably in the door this is significant first and then the burden is there any particular distance that you here's the answer to that a much larger buffer zone might be permissible constitutionally if the city or the government has done what the supreme court said mcmullen it has to do if it has attempted or was it would be cost prohibitive to have a policeman there when after the place is open millbrook place is open six days a week day long we're talking about three hours one day a week there's nothing in there he never offered anything not even a conclusory statement about what the cost would be just right on the back of a novel appears what occurs with a cop in inglewood makes it hears what three times that is we don't have anything like that we just have the conclusion of the police officer but even that responsibility of the owners of the building clearly not the case it's a city sidewalk a traditional public forum so whatever the police chief conclusory opinion was about the cost of it the city administrator who's the guy who actually writes the checks and the city ever considered any other type of law when the supreme court struck down the type of lot you have what would you propose in the first place there are laws already on the books that address every item of misbehavior that's tried and in the know who these people are simply not true rich the record is through out the name of the group and everyone agrees it's this one group it's leader and two members there are complaints in the record against these people that are filed why those complaints should become there contact the police they fill out completely foreseen some of this is going on the way but you would think it anybody would have an understandable fear of overzealous protestors on this issue it would be the doctors themselves hot issue in inglewood from one of the doctors who was outside the building and claimed he was harassed by the bread of life group and the police read and got identification from two of the members this is this is not a secret this is not some fluid on identifiable  specific individuals causing the problem clearly the first amendment requires it as explaining mcmullen and bruni that this city attempt to do those things it did not do this it's a burden on the city to explain why not just simply shrug his shoulders and say well that wouldn't are in the record but they didn't become prosecutions city doesn't explain why there's nothing in the record that explains why we don't know but again that's not our burden to explain why the doctors complaints didn't become prosecutions city came up with doesn't even address much of the meet the bad behavior that gave rise to the ordinance in the first place and i am i wrong in understanding that mr coe felt that the imposition of the deposition she said but since then things have gone back to where they were before the bread of life people are still disruptive still the simplest jury turco wish the city would do something else but not against her against the here the city of inglewood it order to address a problem that arises three days a week at one location test an ordinance that applies to perhaps a dozen locations throughout the city of inglewood and this isn't just theoretical they went out and painted yellow lines in about the ineffectiveness of other laws and other measures the mere fact that it applies all over the state makes it not now we tailored i mean impression that on the left of the facility there's a line that you draw right out to the street and there's another line on the other side you drive to the street that's twenty four feet that's not the case the case is you go eighty feet to the left side work then supporters and that said that there was four hundred or whatever and she had maybe one or two successful ones mcmullen may at eighty but the testimony in that case was a drop very very significantly you know very few successful ones after that this notion of of plate of having to walk out into the street we're talking about somebody that's assuming that she doesn't take the letter we submitted to the court which basically allows her to walk through the one buffer zone to get to the all she has to do was walk right along the perimeter of that right along the driveway not into the street that's a kind of a curious argument which raises a material fact issue because this testimony in this case by a volunteer every single day and they called her the runner because she was chased she would chase people for blocks down the street and to see and suggest that that person is afraid to walk along a six foot dry with an eight for driveway of of experienced police officers i think that's an important issue but i just record found that of significant factor that you had a police chief say that a buffer zone from my experience is the best way to deal with this we have in the same thing in this to show up in the afternoon show up some other time ah but it's not it's not you know we didn't have a lot of time under the circumstances to be making i mean the situation was bad at the facility as as i