LAST MONDAY I faced a rather difficult dilemma during my 10 a.m. class. A flier was taped to the wall, declaring that abortion was a Holocaust. To tear down, or not to tear down: That was the question. After a bit of deliberation, I decided not to appoint myself a censor.
It was hard to escape the pro-life protesters around Grounds last week. The aforementioned flier littered message boards around Grounds. A trash can full of plastic fetuses sat in front of Cocke Hall. These displays lacked any sort of taste, and offended just about everyone with whom I spoke about them. It is essential, however, that all speech, even outrageous speech like this, remain unhindered.
Many have expressed the view that someone should silence the pro-life protesters whose means were completely distasteful and upsetting. A trash can full of plastic fetuses on the South Lawn not only upsets women who have had to undergo the emotionally devastating impact of an abortion, but it also can upset women whose pregnancies have ended in miscarriage. The extreme nature of the protests render them offensive and disruptive to the community. Some sectors of the community feel that someone should silence the group.
The government has no business involving itself in issues of privacy. A woman has a complete right to make a choice on whether to terminate or continue her pregnancy. The possibility that the Supreme Court appointments made in the next few years might endanger that right is horrifying.
On that note, it is absolutely necessary that these protesters have the right to speak. The First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." The Constitution protects those who seek to express their political views, no matter what they are. Nowhere in that amendment does it stipulate that the speech must be tasteful. In fact, tasteful speech is usually not under attack. It is the unpopular and offensive forms of speech, such as flag burning, that free speech opponents attempt to censor.
The move to silence the pro-life movement is analogous to the Southern movement to suppress discussion of slavery in antebellum America. While slavery and abortion are nowhere near the same thing, the movement to silence opposition is similar in both cases. Pro-slavery advocates sought to prohibit any discussion of the legality of slavery in the U.S. Congress. Congress, under much duress, eventually passed a law in 1836 to table any petition that discussed slavery. Even though the gag rule was overturned in 1844, the pro-slavery lobby continued to try to suppress speech. In 1856, Congressman Preston C. Brooks of South Carolina savagely beat Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor for denouncing a South Carolina senator who advocated the expansion of slavery. This move to "gag" discussion left many feeling powerless to speak on an issue they felt strongly about.
It is imperative that the abortion debate not go the way of the slavery debate. Those who oppose the current legal status of abortion should be unhindered in their speech. Is there a point where it is necessary to curtail the protesters? Absolutely. When we pass across the line that separates speech and physical action, the proper authorities should step in to ensure that no one is hurt.
Allowing protesters to speak is, by no means, allowing their opinions to go unopposed. Groups that support a woman's right to choose should have been engaging in a counter-protest. Where was the pro-choice group First Right during last week's protests? The only effective way to counteract the destructive speech of last week is to provide alternative information.
The right to speak one's opinion, no matter how controversial or repugnant, is a mark of an enlightened society. It is what differentiates the United States from a North Korea or a Taliban Afghanistan. Whether it is burning the flag, protesting war, pornography or speaking out against abortion, speech needs protection. There is no clause in the First Amendment that demands that protected speech be tasteful. The pro-life protests were clearly in poor taste. Yet, the fact that the protesters can express their unpopular opinion is what makes the United States the great country it is.
In this time during which our country is under attack by those who abhor our political freedoms, it is essential to allow all forms of speech that do not endanger national security. While many of us were unhappy with the actions of last week's protesters, it is imperative that they have the right to convey their views.
(Joe McMurray is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 3 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
