WPCP 2:BcR Z+#|o "m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR29R  2 oNew Century SchoolbookTimes RomanTimes Roman BoldNew Century Schoolbook ItalicBQck QuoteSingle spaced indented quote v C   (  Cd  ( ( ( 5 EllipsisParagraph Ellipsis <;X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"X^?Sf}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}FFoSaSFSu}So}o}oS}}FF}F}}}}SaF}}}}ox2xS?SS*SSSSSSSSSS}FooooooooooSFSFSFSF}}}}}}}}}}o}}}}}}ooooooo}oooo}}}}}}}}SFSFSFSFa}FFFFF}}}}}}SSSaaaaFFF}}}}}}}ooo}F}SaF}}}}}NX?q}So}}}}}EN}K}K-oo}SS}}SoKF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR}{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS2=,c3c6c\:"X^?S}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}SS}a}SFS}S}ooS}FSF}oaS}}}oc7cS?SS*SSSSSSSSSSF}}}}}oooooaFaFaFaF}}}}}}}}}}}}}oooooooo}}}}}}aFaFaFaF}FFFFF}}oooaaaaSSS}oooFoaS}}}NX?}S}}}}}}KS}K}KF}}}SS}}S}KF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"m^)+9RRzx11IY)1))RRRRRRRRRR))YYYAljjjrjbrz>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXHYYY66^E@@@@(JEEE66;,1N11@@@A9<16%7,7(7,A6C/A1>1P7A/:,A1E12156(7(>4E/A1H>E>9(6144>986@9999999999999999999(((((((666666666666666666661111111444444444444>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A7AA>E>1"m^!$/CCdb((gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkklWdPZH\I\I\IlWoY2(mWgRklWaMlWs\SCYG\IhSr\lWw_s\_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR2^K P&)o=3no P['C&PDS?s\  PCPDS?#皝4  p(AC&u![2*d[ P['CP   u![2*4[e xzCX&r!Y1)LY P['CP!)o=3no P['C&P")o=34Roe xzC&X&#UC%D4C P['CJP&$F66 P['CP&]I(!̤PI P['ChP u![2*d[ P['CP  =%!\\=%QQ=\%++=n77nCCn+n%CC< BQ [d "  Ԍ ( , , I thus conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the prohibition against physically approaching in the 300foot zone around the clinic withstands petitioners' First Amendment challenge. I therefore dissent from Part III!D.   9H1 d dy,III؃  L2  Because I have joined Parts I, II, III!E, and IV of the Court's opinion and have dissented as to Part III!D after concluding that the 300foot zone around the clinic is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, no  J further discussion is necessary. See n.1, supra. The Court, however, proceeds to address challenges to the injunction that, although arguably raised by petitioners' briefs, are not properly before the Court.  After correctly rejecting the contentbased challenge to the 36foot buffer zone raised by the first question in the certiorari petition, the Court nevertheless decides to modify the portion of that zone that it believes does not protect ingress to the clinic. Petitioners, however, presented only a contentbased challenge to the 36foot zone; they did not present a time, place, and manner  J& challenge. See n.1, supra. They challenged only the  J 300foot zones on this ground. Ibid. The scope of the  J 36foot zone is thus not properly before us.+  uB> ԍ FTN    XgEpXFr  ddf < Indeed, it is unclear whether these challenges were presented to the Florida Supreme Court. In their appeal to that Court, petitioners did not even file the transcript of the evidentiary hearings, contending that the sole question presented by this appeal is a question of law. See Appellants' Motion in Response to Appellees' Motion to Require Full Transcript and Record of Proceedings in No.93!00969 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla.), p.2. Because petitioners argued that the entire decree was invalid as a matter of law, without making any contention that particular provisions should be modified, it appears there was no argument in that Court about the size or the shape of the buffer zones.d"##Ԍ Even if the question were properly presented here, I fully agree with the Florida Supreme Court's refusal to quibble over a few feet one way or the other when the parties have not directed their  uB arguments at a narrow factual issue of this kind. Operation Rescue  uBl v. Womens Health Center, Inc., 626 So. 2d 664, 673 (1993). Moreover, respect for the highest court of the State strongly counsels against this sort of error correction in this Court.+ Izumi"    J Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v.  U.S. Phillips  J Corp., 510 U.S. ___ (1993) (per curiam).q  uBA ԍ FTN    XgEpXFr  ddf < Even assuming that a time, place, and manner challenge to the 36foot zone is fairly included within the first question presented,  uB petitioners' brief challenges the entire 36foot zone as overbroad and seeks to have it invalidated in its entirety. Nowhere in their briefs do they argue that the portion of the zone on the north and west sides of the clinic should be struck down in the event the Court upholds the restrictions on the front and east. As such, we do not have the benefit of respondents' arguments why those portions, if considered severally from the other portions of the zone, should be upheld. Moreover, the existence in the record of facts found by the trial court respecting petitioners' conduct"independent of petitioners' obstruction of ingress and egress"that support the entire 36!foot zone makes the Court's micromanagement of the injunction  uB particularly inappropriate. See, e.g., App. 53 ( The clinic has fences on its west and north side, and persons would occasionally place a ladder on the outside of the fence and position themselves at an elevation above the fence and attempt to communicate by shouting  uBh at persons (staff and patients) entering the clinic); id., at 54 ( [T]he doctor was followed as he left the clinic by a person associated with the [petitioners] who communicated his anger to the doctor by  uB pretending to shoot him from the adjoining vehicle); id., at 54!55 (noting that a physician similarly employed was killed by an antiabortionist at a clinic in North Florida).  The same is true of the noise restrictions and the  J  images observable provision of  1! (4).  uBb ԍ FTN    XgEpXFr  ddf < Paragraph (4) provides in full: During the hours of 7:30 a.m. through noon, on Mondays through Saturdays, during surgical procedures and recovery periods, from singing, chanting, whistling, shouting, yelling, use of bullhorns, auto horns, sound amplification equipment or other sounds or images observable to or within earshot of the patients inside the Clinic.  uB Id., at 59. That paragraph"   does not refer to the 36foot or the 300foot buffer zones, nor does it relate to the constitutionality of the in concert provision. As such, although I am inclined to agree with the Court's resolution respecting the noise and images restrictions, I believe the Court should refrain from deciding their constitutionality because they are not challenged by the questions on which certiorari was granted.  9H1 d d,IV؃  2  For the reasons stated, I concur in Parts I, II, III!E, and IV of the Court's opinion, and respectfully dissent from the remaining portions.