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.