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
Goodloe, J.
(dissenting) — I am in complete agreement with Justice Andersen's dissent. I write separately only to note that if, on remand, a narrower place restriction is imposed that such restriction should state specifically where the picketers may not be. Any injunction which states only where the picketers shall be is necessarily too broad and logically precludes them from being anyplace else.