Expressing opinions is not intimidation or harassment.She opposes the existence of the clinic. She has expressed this opposition. She has expressed her opinions of their staff, and she has expressed her opinions on what they do.It was a protest. I see no evidence it was intimidation or harassment.She could have been "standing there breathing and admiring the sky" and that, too, would elicit the same response, because for her, in that space, for that duration, any presence in that place is "protest... intimidation... harassment"
If, as her lawyer's statement asserts, she only protested when the clinic was closed, I do not regard her protest as intimidation or harassment.This existential opposition, combined with their presence in the vicinity, in the clear reality of attacks made on businesses such as that by groups such as this, is intimidation. Due to their behavior in the past of harassing folks passing through that space, just being there to see and watch people move through that space is intimidation.
That's absurd. Other people are not "harassed" by merely being disapproved of, visible disapproval or not. Do you think a frown at bad customer service is 'harassment'?And, being there for that long, praying, visibly or as publicly stated by the guilty party, is an act of harassment. It is a communication of message (though her loitering presence is sufficient to make that comminication, given her reputation), that they disapprove of the behavior of the patrons of the business, and of the business. It is an unwanted behavior visibly directed at a captive group. That is harassment.
Sure Jan.Your inability to see it is directly proportional to the percentage of your vision you seem to be willfully obstructing with your hand and eyelids and mental faculties.