McCullen v. Coakley

"A Massachusetts statute makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a 'public way or sidewalk' within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any place, other than a hospital, where abortions are performed."

Is this regulation content-based?

Is this like an ordinance banning residential picketing but which exempts "peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute?"

See Carey v. Brown: Striking down a state statute that generally bars picketing of residences or dwellings, but exempts from its prohibition "the peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute." Carey held that this ordinance "discriminates between lawful and unlawful conduct based upon the content of the demonstrator's communication." 447 U.S. at 460.

Or how about an ordinance in the racially-segregated South in the 1950s, that creates a buffer zone in front of "any business that practices racial segregation?"

Court says content-neutral, but what do you think?

Justice Alito says the ordinance constitutes viewpoint-discrimination:

 . . . [D]uring business hours, individuals who wish to counsel against abortion or to
criticize the particular clinic may not do so within the buffer zone. If they engage in such
conduct, they commit a crime. See § 120E½(d). By contrast, employees and agents of the
clinic may enter the zone and engage in any conduct that falls within the scope of their
employment. A clinic may direct or authorize an employee or agent, while within the
zone, to express favorable views about abortion or the clinic, and if the employee
exercises that authority, the employee’s conduct is perfectly lawful. In short, petitioners
and other critics of a clinic are silenced, while the clinic may authorize its employees to
express speech in support of the clinic and its work.
. . .
It is clear on the face of the Massachusetts law that it discriminates based on
viewpoint. Speech in favor of the clinic and its work by employees and agents is
permitted; speech criticizing the clinic and its work is a crime. This is blatant viewpoint
discrimination.

 Do you agree with Alito?