Hill v. Colorado

530 U.S. 703 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A statute makes it unlawful within the regulated areas for any person to 'knowingly approach' within eight feet of another person, without that person's consent, 'for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person. . . .' Petitioners had engaged in 'sidewalk counseling,' and such activities frequently entail being within eight feet of other persons and they feared prosecution under the new statute which chilled their exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. The District Judge granted respondents' motion and dismissed the complaint. It held that the statute permissibly imposed content-neutral 'time, place, and manner restrictions' that were narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and left open ample alternative channels of communication. The 'free zone' created by the statute was narrowly tailored under the test announced in Ward, and that it left open ample alternative means of communication because signs and leaflets may be seen, and speech may be heard at a distance of eight feet. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Colorado denied review. Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N.Y. was decided, and the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals was vacated and remanded the case to that court for further consideration in light of Schenck. The Court of Appeals reinstated its judgment upholding the statute; a distance of eight feet was sufficient to protect speech on a public sidewalk. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. Unlike the floating buffer zone in Schenck, which would require a protester either to stop talking or to get off the sidewalk whenever a patient came within 15 feet, the 'knowingly approaches' requirement in the Colorado statute allows a protester to stand still while a person moving towards or away from a health care facility walks past her. The court concluded that the statute was narrowly drawn to further a significant government interest.