So the guys and gals from the Genocide Awareness Project came to the University of Connecticut with their horrible pictures of aborted babies. I feel squeamish about doing stuff like that but I’d bet you anything that babies live have been saved because of what they’ve done. I’d bet some folks have seen those pics and it’s shaped their judgement on abortion – even if they won’t admit it.
But that’s not what I’m talking about here. A bunch of pro-abort students rallied to stop the GAP from protesting abortion on campus. Listen to the words they use when talking to the news reporter. They seem to believe that the pro-life position is outside the realm of free speech.
The first thing that popped in my head was that whoever’s teaching Constitutional Law at UConn has to do a much better job. These kids don’t understand the first thing about free speech. But this is exactly the kind of thinking we’re increasingly going to see in the future.
It’s not an amazing video but it’s actually disturbing because of the ease which these students feel they can cast out whole swaths of people from the protections of the Constitution. And these aren’t high school students. They’re at the University of Connecticut.
Check it out:
April 20, 2012 at 6:15 am
Liberals are idiots. Liberal students are laughably idiotic.
April 20, 2012 at 6:20 am
Stupid little twits…
April 20, 2012 at 9:19 am
Liberals have taken up the "error has no rights" banner. They really believe that, if you disagree with them, you are wrong. Because you are wrong, you have no right to express your views, because you may infect others with your error.
April 20, 2012 at 10:20 am
The US Constitution is a much wiser document than it's given credit for; the Founding Fathers only intended for the First Amendment to protect actual political speech. Not only did they have no problem with laws against obscenity and blasphemy, several of them actually killed men in duels over verbal insults.
Of course, since abortion is an issue of civic peace—whether over 1 million people are being murdered with impunity, or not, is something of an important question—it is unquestionably an issue of political speech. One could make a case for not having explicit images in a public display regarding it (just as one could for a display concerning the Lewinsky scandal), but the horrifying thing is that the opponents actually object to their being a display at all.
It's one thing to say "Don't show dismembered embryos" (or "Don't depict Bill Clinton getting oral sex"). It's quite another to say "You may not speak about this issue at all." And yet that is the actual content of the objections here.
April 20, 2012 at 10:44 am
Thank God they find the pictures offensive. There is hope still for a change of heart.
April 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm
1:37- "But these protesters didn't leave this campus fight losers."
That's debatable.
April 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm
@Sophis'a Favorite: The First Amendment is one piece. Freedom of Religion is freedom to speak about God, to God, and disseminate the Word of God in speech, press and peaceable assembly. "WE" from the anti life group does not speak for me. Why does she not drop dead if she is against life? That Criminal Tresspass means that the public property of public college is prejudiced against the free speech of the pro-lifers. Pro-life tax money pays for and buys their presence on campus. Freedom of speech means that the anti lifers must absolutely, must allow, not interrupt, nor hinder in any way the prolifers speech. It is more than rude, it is unconstitutional. Let them make their own forum. UConn is not a protected against free speech public place.
April 20, 2012 at 1:02 pm
"hate speech" was the interrupting of the pro-lifers.
April 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm
As Fr. Pavone has said, abortion won't be ended until people see what abortion is–whether it's uncomfortable or not!
April 20, 2012 at 2:25 pm
I wonder if our parents and grandparents felt the same way I do about the future generations.
April 20, 2012 at 2:35 pm
"WE hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of HAPPINESS" Now, HATE SPEECH. "I LOVE MY MOTHER AND MY FATHER" from a five year old child is now, HATE SPEECH. Our Founding Principles are now HATE SPEECH, without having been changed with a two thirds ratification of the states. The Word of God is now HATE SPEECH. What part of "WE" are the pro-abortionists not? and if they are not, why are they overruling our first freedoms? If our Declaration of Independence is HATE SPEECH let them change it with a two-thirds ratification by the states before assaulting taxpayers. The definition of "assault" is preventing another person from Pursuing their HAPPINESS. This, the pro-abortionists have done to the unborn and to the pro-lifers. Their speech is more equal than ours. Can you say communist?
April 20, 2012 at 2:35 pm
At the clinic where I pray one gentleman recently got a large (5'x5') sign showing an aborted corpse. Although I an as squeamish as you about it, he's actually had women come out of the clinic and thank him for the sign, saying ti helped them choose to keep their baby.
So yes, I can vouch that lives have been saved by such tactics.
April 20, 2012 at 4:40 pm
I love how liberals will claim hate speech if you have a dissenting view other than their own. I am glad their college education is working well for them because they do not know the first amendment and they do not understand what hate speech really is. If I was their parents, I would be asking for my money back.
CLQ
April 20, 2012 at 6:28 pm
@Anonymous 11:40AM A class action lawsuit
April 20, 2012 at 8:29 pm
UConn has had many issues with things like speech codes, which were deemed unconstitutional in the past…evidently the constitutional law professors they consulted don't care.
April 20, 2012 at 10:26 pm
The "free speech zone" is from sea to shining sea.
April 21, 2012 at 1:23 am
People need to know the truth of killing babies – where they should be safest – in their mothers' wombs. Abortion is a lie, a whole tissue of lies and that is why the promoters of abortion use grossly misleading terms and phraseology and suppress images of the innocent defenceless babies either living in utero or after they've been savagely ripped apart. It allows them more easily to continue deceiving themselves and others, and keep their otherwise naturally-occurring logic, conscience, compassion – dead. There is not so much a right as a duty to expose the large-scale brutal (and commercial) killing of our most innocent and defenceless, our unborn children. Each and every such killing is a fundamental breach of Natural Law (which reason makes known to us) and of the US Constitution. The SCOTUS grossly misinterpreted, nay subverted, the Constitution to purport to find validity in a law permitting the killing of our children still living in their mothers' wombs.