Extreme and Unavoidable Speech is Worthy of Protection

When the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) visited the University of Cincinnati (UC) on Oct 22-23 it succeeded in educating students on abortion. But GAP also has the effect of teaching the university a valuable civics lesson as well. The News Record’s Editorial entitled “Images of abortion extreme and unavoidable” is an example of an editorial staff misunderstanding the intention of the first amendment. The News Record calls GAP “borderline disturbing the peace.” The fact is the first amendment was created to protect offensive speech because popular speech needs no protection.

In Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) the US Supreme Court ruled that free speech “may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Therefore, the possibility that GAP or anyone else might offend others by their speech is irrelevant and cannot be used as a basis for restricting that speech.

The News Record wrote “when it [GAP] interferes with daily life and is blatantly offensive to much of the populace, steps must be taken to rectify the situation.” It is axiomatic that the First Amendment protects speech, especially when the speech is offensive to some. In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134-35 (1992) the US Supreme Court ruled that speech cannot be “punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

The News Record wrote that GAP was “unfair to students who do not want to be exposed to such images.” In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971) the US Supreme Court ruled that viewers who dislike a message have a responsibility to “avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.”

The News Record like so many others who encounter GAP use red herring arguments to change the subject away from the horrific reality of abortion killing. The News Record uses this logical fallacy because they cannot justify abortion in light of the incontrovertible photographic evidence of the injustice. CBR wants to reverse Roe v. Wade and the News Record wants to “rectify the situation” by restricting free speech in the foremost marketplace of ideas – a college campus. I ask you - who are the extremists here?

UC is a publicly funded University; however, if the News Record had it their way it would become a private social club. Thank God there are not two first amendments.

Mark Harrington
Executive Director
Center for Bio Ethical Reform Midwest
P.O. Box 360503
Columbus, OH 43236
Tel. 614-759-5195
Fax 614-759-5194
Cell 614-419-9000
Website: www.abortionno.org

Pro-choice editorial from The News Record

Staff Editorial: Images of abortion protest extreme and unavoidable

By:

Posted: 10/25/07

The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), sponsored by Students for Life, brought a photo-mural display of aborted fetuses to the University of Cincinnati's McMicken Commons on Monday, October 22 and Tuesday, October 23.

"The Genocide Awareness Project is a traveling display that depicts pictures of historical genocide and abortion, and this display has been brought to well over 100 universities throughout the country," said Paul Troiani, a volunteer for GAP.

The display utilizes images of aborted fetuses interspersed with images of historical genocide, including lynchings of blacks and the Holocaust. GAP wants the display to "stimulate dialogue," but they want the dialogue "to be informed," according to Troiani.

We at The News Record feel the display, even though it may accomplish its intended goal, was wholly inappropriate in its delivery. We feel that the violent imagery in an extremely public area, which can not be easily circumvented, is not only on the borderline of disturbing the peace, but it is also unfair to students who do not want to be exposed to such images, no matter what their opinions on abortion may be.

The News Record staff is not supporting the anti-abortion platform or the pro-abortion platform; we merely feel GAP's exhibit was presented in an unfeeling and inappropriate manner.

The display was located on the hill of McMicken Commons, near Tangeman University Center, making it highly visible from many areas of campus. It initially had two tiers of images, making it even harder for those who did not want to be exposed to the images to avoid them.

There were two reasons for the signs not being placed further away, according to Troiani.

"Students can see the signs from a considerable distance. This campus is so wide, they're going to see these orange signs and blue signs," Troiani said. "The other reason is security reasons. If we put these signs too far away, there's a possibility we could not monitor them and could be damaged."

However, if there was a possibility for theft or defacement, why not station a volunteer there to pass out literature and spread the word? This would broaden your message, prevent damage to property, and help warn the students that don't want to view the images effectively avoid them.

And what of the possible repercussions to the university's image?

There were several groups of potential incoming freshmen on campus at the same time as the display. To have such violence exhibited in the center of campus can't be positive for UC's image.

The News Record staff understands GAP has a First Amendment right to free speech and freedom to assemble in a public place, such as UC's campus. However, we feel GAP's mission and directive is marred by their choice to use primal and unnecessarily emotionally charged images. Free speech should be protected for all people and organizations. However, when it interferes with daily life and is blatantly offensive to much of the populace, steps must be taken to rectify the situation.

The Daily Kent Stater Editorial Board Has No Conscience (Response to the article posted below)

The Daily Kent Stater Editorial “We’re Only Losing Our Appetites” (Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2007) makes CBR Midwest’s point loud and clear. The Stater Editorial Board lost more than their appetites; they lost their capacity to possess a functioning conscience.

The “consensus opinion” of the board called our abortion pictures “horrific.” They stated that students will be “angered at the sight of the billboard.” Why would anyone be angered by a picture of an abortion? I thought that abortion simply represented the removal of a blob of tissue during a benign medical procedure. If abortion is such a good idea, a constitutional right, then why would a picture of it be “horrific” and anger people?

The answer is simple: abortion is an indefensible act of violence that kills a baby, and the photographic evidence of that injustice speaks louder than words. “Adults” and those “mature enough to have critical thinking skills” like those on the Stater Editorial board have become part the problem regarding abortion. The Stater’s Editorial uses the rhetorical coping mechanism of changing the subject to hide their complicity in baby killing.

Words fail to adequately describe injustice. Could you imagine attempting to describe the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon in words alone? After viewing the tragic events of 911, how much more information did Americans need to know about Islamic terrorism? Answer: Not much. It was the images of 911 alone that united our nation against terrorism. The difference is Americans did not attack themselves on 911. However, many Americans are responsible for abortion killing and trying real hard to find arguments to justify it.

Finally, the Stater is right about one thing. “Public opinion is still split the same way it has been for years” on abortion despite over three decades of “debate.” This is because when someone says “abortion is murder,” they are dismissed as only stating their opinion. But when someone shows a photo of a baby tortured to death by abortion that no longer represents an opinion, but it represents the incontrovertible evidence of a crime.

CBR Midwest believes in having informed “grown up conversations” on abortion. However, a discussion of abortion WITHOUT the accompanying evidence of the killing is wholly inadequate. The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) combines the evidence of abortion along with the arguments against it.

I wonder if the Stater would welcome GAP to the campus because it “creates a dialogue?” For some reason I anticipate that they will denounce GAP too?

Mark Harrington
Executive Director
Center for Bio Ethical Reform Midwest
P.O. Box 360503
Columbus, OH 43236
Tel. 614-759-5195
Fax 614-759-5194
Cell 614-419-9000
Website: www.abortionno.org

We're only losing our appetites - Daily Kent Stater editorial board

Most of the students at Kent State are 18 years old or older. We're all here to further develop our thinking and reasoning as well as gain work experience to prepare us for our future.

The point we're trying to make is we're adults, or at least near adulthood. We're mature enough to have critical thinking skills and the ability to make rational decisions.

So why does Center for Bio Ethical Reform Midwest, a non-profit education foundation, think driving a truck painted with an aborted fetus around the city of Kent will have any real impact other than making people lose their appetites?

Abortion is a serious and controversial issue. We are not debating abortion. We just don't understand why CBR Midwest thinks Kent State is "abortion vulnerable" and the best way to prevent abortions is to parade around a blown-up picture of an aborted fetus.

The truck will drive around the city today and tomorrow without stopping. No soapbox speeches. No informational literature. Nothing but a giant aborted fetus. That's supposed to make everyone pro-life.

Honestly, that's pretty insulting. All they are trying to do is stir up anger and outrage because the picture is so horrific. It's only an emotional reaction. They aren't explaining why they think it's wrong, immoral, etc. and why you should feel the same way. No, they're just driving around town with a giant aborted fetus behind them.

They've done this before. It's nothing new. Public opinion on abortion is still split the same way it has been for years and will continue to be. They aren't going to change anyone's mind with their macabre strategy. All they will do is cement the minds of pro-life and pro-choice supporters because each side will be angered at the sight of the billboard.

They'll get into arguments over the issue, maybe in the middle of class or during lunch at the Hub. Neither will listen to the other - each one will be trying to yell louder at the other person because that person is trying to drown them out. That's not a healthy debate based on facts, reasoning and personal beliefs. It's just verbal outrage falling on deaf ears.

They don't seem interested in actively engaging students at Kent State in person. Now, if CBR Midwest were to actually stop driving around every now and then, talk to students about their campaign and why they are doing it, that would at least create a dialogue. Then students would learn more about their point of view.

There isn't even a press conference at any point. Interviews are available upon request. So, if the Stater and the Record Courier didn't consider them newsworthy, most students on this campus probably wouldn't even know about it. How does that fit into educating the student body?

We'd like to think that a group so concerned about the unborn children of Kent State students would go to a little more effort. We're not little kids. We have to deal with school, bills, peer pressure, sex, family and every other cause of stress imaginable. We are fully capable of having a grown-up conversation. Is the CBR Midwest?

The above editorial is the consensus opinion of the Daily Kent Stater editorial board.

Abortion Ruins "Family Atmosphere" Not Pictures

By Mark Harrington

Melissa Obergefell’s letter entitled “Abortion protesters ruin fair for families” (August 17, 2007) attacks the messenger and not the message. Obergefell writes that the “family atmosphere of the state fair was destroyed” by the bloody abortion images held by pro lifers. She mentioned that her family trip to the fair was “darkened by such an assault” of “extremely graphic, taller-than-me images of dead, mutilated babies.”

Which is worse, people displaying the photographic evidence of dismembered unborn children or that in our city alone thousands of pre born babies are slaughtered each year?

What disturbs the “family atmosphere” of our city is not the presence of God fearing Americans standing up for defenseless unborn babies but the brutality of abortion which we allow to occur countless of times each day. Killing children is not a family value.

Ms. Obergefell: You want to repeal the First Amendment. Pro lifers want to end abortion. Who is the extremist?

Mark Harrington
Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Midwest

PO Box 360503

Columbus, OH 43236-0503

614-759-5195

614-419-9000

"Abortion protesters ruin fair for families"

From August 3-16, 2007 a group from Wisconsin toured Ohio with handheld signs depicting aborted fetus’ and embryos. During the visit they stood with the signs outside the Ohio State Fair. The following letter to the Editor appeared in the Columbus Dispatch on August 17, 2007.

Abortion protesters ruin fair for families

Friday, August 17, 2007 3:29 AM

My family attended the Ohio State Fair's "Family Day" on the evening of Aug. 6. When we exited I-71 at 11th Avenue, we drove to the fair gate through a virtual tunnel of extremely graphic, taller-than-me images of dead, mutilated babies. We never would have imagined that our family trip to the fair would be darkened by such an assault.

My children, girls ages 7 and 3, are exposed to lots of urban realities in our visits to our city's happenings. We can usually count on a reasonably neighborly experience, and if not, we can at least count on a police presence to bring things back to safety. This time, we could tell that the police who were tending to this out-of-control incident were doing the best that they thought they could. Apparently, they'd taken bullhorns from the demonstrators, and were staying nearby but could not infringe on the "rights" of these people to "stand there."

I ask that this "right," and the way that it is dealt with, be further examined. Though I do appreciate the removal of the bullhorns, I do not agree that the sound of this demonstration was more disturbing of peace or more indecent than the sight of it. I could have explained all this much more easily to my children if the demonstrators were shouting Bible verses and curses into megaphones than I can erase those horrible, violent, confusing images from their minds.

The family atmosphere of the fair was destroyed by these people. The exercise of their freedom compromised our enjoyment and that of many others. I am concerned that these demonstrations will continue and maybe even increase, spreading this attack message in our friendly, safe city. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the moral and social issues for which these demonstrators stand, but I do feel our city's family-friendliness is being threatened by their extremism. Change is necessary in the policies that surround this issue.

MELISSA OBERGEFELL
Columbus