-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
JUDY WOODRUFF:As always, Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was in the courtroom this morning, and she is back with us tonight.
Marcia...
MARCIA COYLE,The National Law Journal: Hi, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF:... good to you have back with us.
MARCIA COYLE:Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF:So, tell us, Marcia, a little bit more about what this case is about, what each side is arguing.
MARCIA COYLE:OK.
Well, really, it's two arguments, in a sense. The challengers to the Massachusetts law claimed that the law itself is what we call content-based. It discriminates1 on the basis of viewpoint, that its effect of the buffer2 zone is really to curb3 the speech of people who do not support abortions5.
It also -- they also argue that it's not a narrowly tailored law, which is really one of the requirements under the First Amendment6 if government wants to regulate speech, that the buffer zone is around only abortion4 facilities, and not even all the -- not even -- it's around facilities that some don't even have problems with demonstrators or protesters.
And, finally, they argue that the government has other tools available to deal with the problem that it says and argues is why it has the law that it has. It can get injunctions from courts. It can have police move people.
On the other side, the state is saying, look, this is not viewpoint discrimination. What we are regulating here is conduct. The problem is congestion7, too many people on the sidewalk, too many people trying to approach women and relatives in cars as they drive into the parking lot.
They say it's narrowly tailored because the challengers do have the ability to speak to women coming into the clinic. Really, what they are objecting to, they say, is basically seven to 10 seconds that a woman walks from the yellow line to the entrance of the clinic.
And those other alternatives, Massachusetts says it has found they do not work, which is why they amended8 their law in 2007 with this particular buffer zone.
JUDY WOODRUFF:Seven to 10 seconds.
So, what are the -- what are the constitutional questions then that the justices are looking at? And what were they saying today?
MARCIA COYLE:Well, the justices first probed the lawyer for the challengers, Mark Rienzi. And they were questioning basically how far does he go here with his arguments over a buffer zone? Are all buffer zones problematic under the First Amendment?
There are buffer zones, they said, for example, around funeral services to military funeral services, buffer zones around certain public forums9 that are going to have political events or even entertainment events.
And Mr. Rienzi said that actually he does think that there are First Amendment problems with buffer zones, but he said the government has to make a very strong record as to why they need it. And that record, he claims, wasn't made by Massachusetts for this particular buffer zone.
JUDY WOODRUFF:And did Massachusetts -- did the attorney for the state of Massachusetts come back on that point?
MARCIA COYLE: Yes, she did.
And she was probed by the justices as well. They wanted to know, for example, why 35 feet? In fact, Justice Kagan said at one point in the argument she was a little hung up on how large that is. And the Massachusetts attorney said, look, the legislature looked at other buffer zones that had been upheld by courts, 50 feet, 36 feet, 15 feet, and then decided10 that 35 is what was going to work here.
And she also pushed back on whether too much speech is curbed11. For example, in the record -- and Massachusetts attorney feels they made a very -- the legislature made a very thorough record of the problems here -- Ms. McCullen, who brought the challenge, has said that she was able to speak with and deter12 roughly 80 women from the time the law went into effect 2007 until today, and that's not curbing13 speech.
JUDY WOODRUFF:And I gather that they even got into, the justices did, talking about what exactly is the distance...
MARCIA COYLE:Well, it was a little surprising, Judy, that some of them don't seem to really know what 35 feet is.
Mr. Rienzi at some point said, it could extend from the court's bench to the back of the courtroom, and the courtroom is much longer than that buffer zone. The deputy solicitor14 general for the Obama administration supporting the state of Massachusetts described it as an NBA three-point zone.
JUDY WOODRUFF:And we left it at that? It was left at that?
MARCIA COYLE:It was.
I think there is a dispute about how big 35 feet is, as well as really how much speech it actually curbs15. That is the guts16 of the case.
JUDY WOODRUFF:All right, Marcia Coyle, thank you.
MARCIA COYLE:My pleasure.
点击收听单词发音
1 discriminates | |
分别,辨别,区分( discriminate的第三人称单数 ); 歧视,有差别地对待 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 buffer | |
n.起缓冲作用的人(或物),缓冲器;vt.缓冲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 curb | |
n.场外证券市场,场外交易;vt.制止,抑制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 abortion | |
n.流产,堕胎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 abortions | |
n.小产( abortion的名词复数 );小产胎儿;(计划)等中止或夭折;败育 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 amendment | |
n.改正,修正,改善,修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 congestion | |
n.阻塞,消化不良 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 Amended | |
adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 forums | |
讨论会; 座谈会; 广播专题讲话节目; 集会的公共场所( forum的名词复数 ); 论坛,讨论会,专题讨论节目; 法庭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 curbed | |
v.限制,克制,抑制( curb的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 deter | |
vt.阻止,使不敢,吓住 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 curbing | |
n.边石,边石的材料v.限制,克制,抑制( curb的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 solicitor | |
n.初级律师,事务律师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 curbs | |
v.限制,克制,抑制( curb的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 guts | |
v.狼吞虎咽,贪婪地吃,飞碟游戏(比赛双方每组5人,相距15码,互相掷接飞碟);毁坏(建筑物等)的内部( gut的第三人称单数 );取出…的内脏n.勇气( gut的名词复数 );内脏;消化道的下段;肠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|