Replies

Well, it's consistent with the FedGov's unwillingness to use RICO against labor unions for conspiring to violent acts "incidental" to collective bargaining efforts.

In short, it's good for demonstrating how consistently inconsistent the laws of the land are.

Personally, as a pro-life activist...if someone were to enter an abortion clinic illegally, I would understand if the clinic owners opted to engage in appropriate self-defense measures.

Bottom line: these groups have done far more to help the pro-aborts than anything the pro-aborts could do by themselves. And you're saying I should cheer the fact that they will still be doing damage to the cause in the future.

if someone were to enter an abortion clinic illegally, I would understand if the clinic owners opted to engage in appropriate self-defense measures.

According to NOW's brief in this case, one didn't need to enter the clinic (legally or otherwise) to be an extortionist. All a protester needed to do was conduct a protest which "delayed" or "impeded" a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. That protest could have been entirely non-violent and conducted on public property; as far as NOW was concerned, it was still "extortion".

Incidentally, much, perhaps all, of the evidence alleging violence on the part of Joe Scheidler in this case was perjured. In particular, a woman who testified about being beaten up by pro-lifers later bragged about being paid thousands of dollars by NOW to testify, and the "minister" who allegedly "saved" her from the protesters is apparently fictional.

No, what is being said is that RICO and the Hobbs Act can not be used to silence speech.

Criminal misconduct is the purview of localities and states, not the great government in the sky.

RICO and the Hobbs Act do not "obtain".