Legal Aspects Of Health Care Administration 11th Edition by George Pozgar

Exercise 3

Facts
Two physicians brought separate actions to obtain injunctions against antiabortion protesters who had been picketing their residences. In the first case, the defendant discovered the personal address of Dr. Murray and visited the house, where the physician's 14-year-old son answered the door. The defendant told the son to tell his father to stop performing abortions. A month later, the defendant told the police that he and 50 other people were going to picket the physician's home. After being warned about the picketing, Murray sent his family away. However, he stayed in the house that day, managing, from his home, two of his patients who were in labor. The picketers walked on the sidewalk in front of Murray's home, carrying posters stating, among other things, that he scars and kills women and their unborn children. They also told neighbors that he was a killer. Murray filed suit seeking damages and injunctive relief, testifying that the picketing deprived him and his family of their family time, harmed his ability to practice because he had to manage his patients from home, and caused his wife to suffer from nervousness and depression. After the hearing, the medical center where Murray performed abortions was burned to the ground. Despite a telephone bomb threat, police never determined who called in the threat or burned the building. After the bomb threat, the defendant and another picketer protested in front of the Murray house. Murray called the police, who arrived and told him to stay in the house. He came out, however, and took a swing at the defendant. He was later convicted of assault.
The chancery division ordered a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant and all others from picketing within 300 feet of the Murray home. The defendants appealed, claiming that the injunction impinged upon their freedom of speech. The appellate division affirmed, finding that the injunction did not violate freedom of speech.
In the second case, Dr. Boffard performed abortions at a clinic, which had been subjected to protests 2 years prior to the protests at Murray's home. In 1990, the protesters appeared at the front of Boffard's residence. The picketers carried signs, some of which read, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Other signs contained pictures of bloody fetal parts. The demonstrators yelled at the physician's wife that her husband was a murderer.
Subsequently, a suit was brought in the chancery division to enjoin the defendants from picketing. The court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting picketing within 200 feet of the physician's home, from referring to Boffard as a killer, and from depicting fetuses on posters. The court made the injunction permanent 5 months later, stopping the picketing within "the immediate vicinity" of Boffard's home. Again, as in the Murray case, the appellate division upheld the injunction. Both cases were appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Issue
Did the defendants' free speech rights outweigh the plaintiffs' residential privacy interests?
Holding
The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the injunction in the Murray case, but remanded the Boffard injunction for a more precise definition of the spatial scope of the ban, finding that "within the immediate vicinity" was too vague.
Reason
Residential privacy represents a sufficient public policy interest to justify injunctive restrictions. Moreover, the chancery division had the power to enjoin the nonviolent, noncriminal activity of the defendants to protect the plaintiffs' residential privacy. The court determined that the injunctions in both cases were content neutral because they could be justified without referring to the content of the defendants' speech. They prohibited any and all picketing, regardless of the type of speech, within a certain distance of the residences. The court further held that because a state has a significant interest in protecting the residential privacy of its citizens, it is justified in imposing injunctive relief.
Do you agree with the court's decision? Explain.