The line between freedom of speech
and impinging upon another’s freedom is an ambiguous boundary. However, Charles
Hayne’s
Ban on “gruesome images”
threatens free speech found at
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ban-on-gruesome-images-threatens-free-speech
and The Thomas More Society’s
U.S.
Supreme Court Petitioned to Reverse Colorado Ban on Graphic Images of Abortion
found at
https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/2013/03/06/u-s-supreme-court-petitioned-to-reverse-colorado-ban-on-graphic-images-of-abortion/
expose the court’s frightening ruling that vastly oversteps this parameter and
the Supreme Court’s dismissal to rehear the case. Starting with a brief review
of the events surrounding the court’s decision, the following will attempt to
demonstrate the danger of the court’s decision to restrict the freedom of
expression by analyzing the consequences of such an action: the disappearance
of places to practice free speech, the beginning of a domino effect to absolute
government controlled speech, termination of the exchange and spread of
knowledge and thus growth of our nation, and the muting of all voices outside
the mainstream.
The affair began
with an anti-abortion protest that ensued on a public sidewalk near a
pro-choice church in Denver. The marchers displayed graphic pictures of the
atrocities of aborted fetuses. These images were visible to the parishioners,
which included children. Charges were brought against the protesters and won. The
appeals court ruled that censoring the speech of anti-abortion protesters is
justified because the state has the responsibility to protect children from
these disturbing images of mutilated fetuses.
Although the
state’s interest in protecting children is understandable, there is danger in prohibiting
free expression in public places just because children may be distraught by the
message. If the government can subdue any speech that a court may think worries
parents, or that the court believes is disturbing to children then the
government would have extensive jurisdiction over public speech. In addition, if
the government restricted all expression in regions where children might be
present, there would be no places for unregulated free discussion. Without a domain
to use free speech, the practice would perish. The First Amendment can’t oscillate
whenever some people believe a certain type of speech is offensive. A constraint on one form of free speech
is a restriction on all free speech. So all speech must be permitted. It is the
duty of government to protect this right and it is the job of parents to determine
what their children can handle and to help them deal with the realities of the
world.
Secondly, the government’s
restriction of the gruesome images is frightening because this is from the same
legal system that sanctions the brutal event. This ruling seems to lead to a
slippery slope of undesired consequences. Next, could be the prohibition of
publications of other inhumane government endorsements, such as mal treatment
of prisoners, the torture of animals, illegal political operations, and other
unjust actions. With the government’s suppression on speech the public would
remain ignorant to these atrocities and the government could do as it pleased.
The importance of
the First Amendment is that it protects unpopular and deviant speech. These
aberrant voices are the ones in need of safeguarding, for they are imperative
for truth to transpire and for the growth of our nation. The abortion illustrations
represent this valuable faction that encourages people to rethink and solidify their
values and actions. The horrid images are compelling because they poignantly
express the message of the protest, which is to stop the brutality of abortion.
The images capture more than words could attempt to describe. The prohibition
of gruesome pictures to protest abortion prevents the communication of an
important message and the exchange of knowledge and ideas. This constraint is
not only unconstitutional but also debilitating to the well being of our nation.
The horrific occurrence
of fetuses being aborted is nearly invisible to the public. The fetuses are
unseen while developing in the womb, and then after they are aborted, they are
quickly disposed. The pictures give a voice to the voiceless and show the unnoticed
horrid results of this ruthless procedure. There are many other instances throughout
history in which photos have been imperative to changing policy to protect
people’s rights. For instance, photos of lynching victims brought attention to
an event many tried to ignore. The nationally publicized photos of the
mutilated body of Emmet Till, a black boy murdered in the south, received a
public uproar. Another example is
the circulation of images of Holocaust victims that portrayed the terror of Nazism
in a way words could not express. Finally, Time magazine portrayed the ruthlessly
marred body of an Afghan woman in an attempt to enlighten readers of the
Taliban’s brutality toward women. Pictures are one of the only tools capable of
representing the helpless. Without this ability the exploited become
imperceptible.
In conclusion, there
is great danger in the consequences of restricting the freedom of speech: the elimination
of areas to exercise free speech, the start of a domino effect to unlimited
government regulated speech, discontinuation of the new ideas, and the silencing
of all speech outside the dominant beliefs. The court’s ruling that confines
free speech and the Supreme Court’s dismissal to rehear the case adamantly calls
for redress. For if an exception to free speech protection were permitted for
churches or places where children were present, it would be a slippery slope to
the beginning of the end of free expression.