The editorial speculates that the decision didn't go far enough, because Chief Justice Roberts wanted a unanimous decision.
It isn't every day a unanimous Supreme Court endorses the free-speech rights of abortion protesters, so huzzahs for that. Thursday's opinion striking down a buffer zone against abortion protesters gets to the right First Amendment result, but it does so with logic that leaves too much speech in future jeopardy.
In 2008 76-year-old Eleanor McCullen sued Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and other officials so she could offer "sidewalk counselling" outside abortion clinics. Under Massachusetts law, only patients and clinic employees were allowed on public sidewalks within a 35-foot radius of the door and faced hefty fines for incursions.
In McCullen v. Coakley, Chief Justice John Roberts writes that the law unconstitutionally restricts access to public sidewalks around abortion clinics in the name of "public safety" without "seriously addressing the problem through alternatives." By regulating public streets, the state directly foreclosed access to places that "developed as venues for the exchange of ideas." Restrictions must be based on misconduct, not directed at peaceful speakers.
Hit the link above for the complete editorial, which addresses the "contortions" in the argument.