In Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474, anti-abortion protesters had taken to picketing in front of the home of a physician who provided abortion services. The town adopted an "ordinance prohibiting picketing before or about a residence." The protesters brought a facial challenge to the ordinance contending it violated their First Amendment right to engage in protected speech in a public forum (i.e., from public streets and sidewalks in front of the physician's home). In rejecting the facial challenge, the Supreme Court observed the ordinance was narrowly drawn and preserved ample means for the protesters to otherwise communicate their ideas when balanced against the governmental interest at issue--"the protection of residential privacy. " (Frisby, supra, 487 U.S. at p. 484.) In Frisby, supra, 487 U.S. at pages 484'485, the Supreme Court had this to say about the interest in preserving residential privacy: "'The State's interest in protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society.' Our prior decisions have often remarked on the unique nature of the home, 'the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick,' , and have recognized that 'preserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value.' One important aspect of residential privacy is protection of the unwilling listener. Although in many locations, we expect individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the home is different. 'That we are often "captives" outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech . . . does not mean we must be captives everywhere.' Instead, a special benefit of the privacy all citizens enjoy within their own walls, which the State may legislate to protect, is an ability to avoid intrusions. Thus, we have repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own homes and that the government may protect this freedom. . . . There simply is no right to force speech into the home of an unwilling listener."