


Do you have a cite for the case?  You don't give enough
information to be able to compare the two situations.
If the demonstrators had been blaring loud rock music 
into the landlord's home all day and night, then I could
see how the opinion would be justified.  But this court
order had prohibited abortion protesters from displaying
pictures of dead fetuses, which doesn't disrupt the privacy
of anyone inside the clinic.  


Perhaps in the privacy of their homes, but not on public
property.  Did the Korean grocery store owner in New York
city have a right to be free from the speech of the protesters 
outside his store?  Patrons inside the store could hear the 
protesters asking them to re-consider shopping there -- how 
is that different from the abortion protesters asking women 
to re-consider getting an abortion at a clinic?  


Even if the protesters' speech could be considered
"harassment" (which it is not), hate speech laws have 
generally been struck down by the courts.  I don't see 
how the words ``don't kill your baby'' or ``abortion is 
murder'' could be considered harassment.


Some of the protesters were arrested for simply praying
quietly on a public sidewalk.  Yeah, I could see how
that might be equivalent to "bombing" and "murder".
Uh huh.  Let us know when you get a grip on reality. 


