The Consequences of Banning Images

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.