The Restriction of Free Speech in McCullen v. Coakley

A controversial modern U.S. Supreme Court decision is the McCullen v. Coakley case. An initial ruling for this case in Massachusetts, “…has made it a crime for speakers to ‘enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk’ within 35 feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of ‘a reproductive health care facility.’ The law applies only at abortion clinics…In effect, the law restricts the speech of only those who wish to use public areas near abortion clinics to speak about abortion from a different point of view” (American Bar Association). This decision in the case has called for it to be heard again by the U.S. Supreme court as it is now a question of (1) if it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) if a past decision in Hill v. Colorado permits this law and whether or not it should be overruled (American Bar Association).
Oliver Wendell Holmes’ “The Path of the Law” assessment consists of the prediction theory, the “Bad Man” account of the law, and being against legal formalism. First, Holmes’ “prediction theory” of law is based on knowing what chances one has in court to have things go their way. This theory deals with (1) making judicial decision-making too easy, and (2) it is unclear how a judge could be wrong about the given law especially if they have a correct understanding of it (Lane, 2007). This also relates to how an attorney practices and how they interpret the law. In this specific case, the decision is not easy because it not only brings into question the First Amendment as it relates to freedom of speech, Fourteenth Amendment as it deals with abortion, and also a past case ruling that it was acceptable for individuals protesting, educating, or distributing literature to be eight feet away fro...

... middle of paper ...

... There has been much debate not only on freedom of speech and where to draw the line, but also whether or not abortions should be allowed. Abortions cause a social and economic concern, and there is a significant value based on the decision.
In Supreme Court cases, it is difficult to determine which side the judges will rule because the cases are often very controversial. The Constitution and one’s rights need to be protected, and if it goes against the Constitution, the consequences will not be agreed upon. As a result, in Holmes’ analysis, it ultimately brings to light the importance of results often being black and white, but they truly aren’t. The public still has a long way to go in not only understanding the law, but also the reasons why judges make these different decisions. But the most important thing is that the U.S. Constitution is always followed.