finding that the state 10 “has a compelling interest in avoiding subjection of children to the physical and 11 psychological abuse inflicted by the picketers’” offensive speech
How later courts described this case
- finding that the state 10 “has a compelling interest in avoiding subjection of children to the physical and 11 psychological abuse inflicted by the picketers’” offensive speech
- finding that the State had a compelling interest in protecting children from the psychological abuse inflicted by picketers' speech
- upholding permanent injunction prohibiting anti-abortion protesters from using the words "murder," "kill," and their derivatives because state has "compelling interest in avoiding subjection of children to the physical and psychological abuse inflicted by the picketers' speech"
- invalidating portion of an injunction that forbade speech harmful to children even if children were not present; “[t]he injunction cannot water down speech to make it suitable for the sandbox”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dolliver, C.J.
(concurring specially) — I concur with all aspects of the majority opinion except that portion discussing the place restriction in the trial court's injunction. The majority has gone farther than necessary to uphold the injunction by resorting to the State's interest in protecting *248 the right of privacy afforded women by the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 , 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973). I believe the injunction is supported simply by the State's interest in maintaining access to and from a health care facility. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 , 13 L. Ed. 2d 487 , 85 S. Ct. 476 (1965); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 182 , 88 S. Ct. 1335 (1968); Pickens v. Okolona Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 594 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1979); Concerned Jewish Youth v. McGuire, 621 F.2d 471 (2d Cir. 1980). I would go no further.