With the Supreme Court punting yesterday on hearing a case where a pro-lifer had been banned from showing graphic abortion pictures where children might be, it could become illegal to show such pictures if there’s a likelihood of children viewing them.
The case arose from a protest waaaaay back in 2005 when some pro-life dudes protested with graphic abortion signs an outdoor Palm Sunday service at an Episcopal Church in Denver. They weren’t too happy about the Church’s stance on abortion.
Now, is that the greatest time to be doing such a thing? Probably not. The Episcopalians were re-enacting Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and there you have these guys on the sidewalk waving pics of dead babies and yelling at them. The thing is, there were a heap of kids at the procession too.
I’m not one of those guys who is always against the use of the graphic abortion sign. But time and place guys. Time and place. A Palm Sunday procession? Really?
So anyway, a lot of the kids got upset. I’m sure a lot of parents did too. But the church sued mainly putting forth the children being upset because people don’t really care when adults get upset but they do care when adults freak out children. So a Colorado court issued an order barring Mr. Scott from “displaying large posters or similar displays depicting gruesome images of mutilated fetuses or dead bodies in a manner reasonably likely to be viewed by children under 12.”
Just a quick question. Why do pictures of the unborn so disturb people if it’s just a “fetus” that has no moral value? The law of the land gives no legal standing to the unborn but then protects people from seeing the actual effects of the law of the land. If the unborn are not “fully human” and deserving of legal protection, then why are pictures of their remains offensive? We know why. It’s because they’re human being. But they can’t even admit that. They argue at one time that the unborn have absolutely no value and then argue that the sight of an abortion is so offensive and horrible that free speech rights must be curbed.
As The New York Times points out, “The Colorado Court of Appeals acknowledged last year that its order was meant to suppress Mr. Scott’s speech based on its content, something the government can do only if it has an exceptionally good reason.”
That exceptionally good reason was, according to the court, a “compelling government interest in protecting children from disturbing images.”
And now the Supreme Court has let that ruling stand by not accepting the case. That could be a problem in the future. This case will surely be cited in the future and it will surely limit free speech, especially for pro-lifers. I’m not a fan on waving graphic abortion signs in front of children. I cringe when my kids walk past that part of the March for Life every year. But this precedent will likely be abused. One must only look at how the IRS bullied and abused pro-life, religious, and conservative groups to understand how this could be abused.
And the ones who will use it will be the pro-abortion types saying they must protect children. Yeah, that’s right, pro-abortion types will be casting themselves as protectors of children. Irony, huh?
I have to wonder if one day it might be seen as offensive and disturbing to some to see a crucifix so it will be banned, you know, for the children.