Freedom of Speech - Carlton U. and Anti Abortion Extremists

[scribblet]

This is a free speech issue, not a discussion on abortion.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100402.html

GAP is an extremist anti abortion group using large posters comparing the Holocaust, KKK and Obama to abortion. Their posters are offensive and sickening, but Carlton U shut them down, or at least denied their application while offering a different area to put up their travelling circus. University of Calgary had problems to0, students have been arrested for 'trespassing'.

I don't think the issue is their opposition to women's choices but their use of holocaust graphics etc. to make their point. I find them offensive and wonder if the same religious extremists here would offer the same freedom of speech to Galloway and the likes of Fred Phelps, or gay activism.

Edited to correct spelling

Edited October 7, 2010 by scribblet

[Evening Star]

I think universities should be public property and the group should not be censored. I also think they're nutters though. Michael Coren and Claire Hoy (both pro-life) schooled Stephanie Gray on the meaning of "genocide" in the second clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV5hiWcMy20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UB5e8LBtUY&NR=1

[Bonam]

I've seen the GAP posters. They are disgusting. As much as I viscerally feel that members of this group are worthless fools who should be taken out back and shot for their idiocy (kind of like the Westboro Baptist Church people), on a more rational level, I recognize that maintaining freedom of speech and its protections are far more important than protecting the public from the nonsensical ramblings of fringe lunatics.

The way freedom of speech works is that these people should not be forcefully silenced, but it doesn't mean that society or any organization is obligated to help them promulgate their message. Setting up a display in a public outdoor area is something they can do. On the other hand, a university would have every right to deny them the use of an auditorium or other facility for making a speech or presentation.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

??? What does Obama have to do with it?

[Bonam]

??? What does Obama have to do with it?

Well, in one of the posters I saw, Obama was Hitler (complete with mustache), presiding over the genocide of millions, presumably by failing to criminalize abortion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, in one of the posters I saw, Obama was Hitler (complete with mustache), presiding over the genocide of millions, presumably by failing to criminalize abortion.

In Canada? Hell, Obama couldn't criminalize abortion in his own country, let alone Canada.

That's whacked.....

[Bonam]

In Canada? Hell, Obama couldn't criminalize abortion in his own country, let alone Canada.

That's whacked.....

It's a generic display made by some US group that has put it up at universities in both the US and Canada. For the record, I've been subjected to these stupid posters both in Vancouver and in Seattle.

Obviously, I don't expect posters from groups such as this to make any sense, whatever the country.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Bonam

[punked]

Depends on if you think University Property is Private or Public doesn't it? If it is Private then the University is right. If it is Public they are wrong.

I think just because University are funded Publicly that does not make their lands Public. We can't ask them to operate outside of government interference then get mad when they say they are private. That is my opinion.

[Evening Star]

As a social democrat, do you not agree that public institutions, e.g. public broadcasters, can and should operate outside political interference yet remain public? And that universities should be more heavily publicly funded and made more accessible?

[punked]

As a social democrat, do you not agree that public institutions, e.g. public broadcasters, can and should operate outside political interference yet remain public? And that universities should be more heavily publicly funded and made more accessible?

Depends. I think universities need to be fairly funded before they should be more publicly funded.

I also think as students pay to go these universities many close to 5000 a year plus other costs that they need to be operated in a private way. The Universities are competing with one another as well as the world for students and dollars as they get more students (international ones being the biggest money makers) they will become more accessible to the public because rates can come down. So operating like the public purse will always keep them where they are at would not be good for both the University and the public funding them.

Let's face it those are my dollars sending those kids to school and if they become more self sufficient bringing in more international AND donor dollars then they need less of my money. That means more of my money can go to health care and womens shelters and so on. So I think they need to operate in the best manor for the revenue stream with in reason. That means sometimes telling protesters that they are welcome to express their opinions, they are welcome to do so though in a academic way in certain marked off places. Sometimes we should be pragmatic. Encourage involvement, and debate but that does not mean it has to be done in this manor.

[Michael Hardner]

punked, that's kind of a dodge... if they were disallowing war protests would that be ok ?

I don't think that they should be disallowing free speech that is otherwise allowed by law.

[punked]

punked, that's kind of a dodge... if they were disallowing war protests would that be ok ?

I don't think that they should be disallowing free speech that is otherwise allowed by law.

Well they weren't disallowing it. They gave them a place to do it. It was the student union building were the anti war protest was given the same space not more then 6 months ago. It wasn't good enough for these people because they couldn't get arrested there to make a scene. Sorry but I believe on a campus there need to be some limitations. That might mean saying here is where we protest here is where we don't. You didn't seem to have a problem when your own government did that during the Olympics or the G20 but now you do?

There free speech wasn't taken away these people just wanted to be treated special and protest where no other group has been allowed to protest. Correction they want to video tape them getting arrested because they knew they would because the school told them they wouldn't be treated differently then any other group.

Right wingers always play the victim.

Edited October 7, 2010 by punked

[wyly]

punked, that's kind of a dodge... if they were disallowing war protests would that be ok ?

I don't think that they should be disallowing free speech that is otherwise allowed by law.

well at the U of C they were given clear direction where and how they could have their little demonstration, they defied the directions and were removed...people have a right to protest but others have the right not to be offended and they were not given that option by the protestors...

[lukin]

well at the U of C they were given clear direction where and how they could have their little demonstration, they defied the directions and were removed...people have a right to protest but others have the right not to be offended and they were not given that option by the protestors...

What was offensive about the demonstration at the U of C?

It doesn't matter who's protesting, or what the subject is...there will always be someone offended.

[scribblet]

They call themselves the Center for Bioethical Reform or GAP, there's lots if you google it.

It's offensive because of their likening abortion to the Holocaust, Rawandan genocide, the KKK etc. Women and their health are never mentioned, when one asks about the women they just shrug, they have no answer as women obviously are nothing, only incubators for a fetus.

If a university is a public place then they do have the right to protest, although they were arrested for trespassing, same at the University of Calgary. The issue is free speech and the right to offend. IMO the universities are trying to reach a compromise to avoid violence but this group doesn't want compromise, they want the publicity and a chance at a lawsuit, (they have won some lawsuits so use the money to further their cause).

I've read on other sites where these types of extremists would even ban the pill as they believe it to be an 'abortifactant' so we have a group of people here who are loony toons, right up there with Fred Phelps and his gang. Freedom of speech is a two edged sword and IMO the best way to deal with this is have a much larger counter protest, keeping it up until their display time is over.

http://www.trentarthur.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1275%3Aanti-abortion-bigots-charged-justice-served-policing-increased-on-university-of-calgary-campus&Itemid=100002

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/gap.shtml

After reading quite a bit about them, I wonder if they really could be charge with promoting hate against women ?

[Evening Star]

Yeah, I do not agree that people have a right to not be offended.

That said, I'm rethinking my position slightly. It does make sense that at e.g. in the university building where I work, people can only put up posters on designated poster boards. If we were to take freedom of expression to an absolute extreme, I could conceivably see it resulting in Coke and Pepsi ads covering university walls and crowding out all other messages. I would probably favour regulating that a little bit.

NB Punked: The research and training that goes on at universities is, in part, what leads to innovations and improvements in things like health care and provision of social services.

[bloodyminded]

Personally, I think they should have been allowed.

However, whether they were stifled because of their particular views--which is their explicit claim--does not appear to be true.

Which makes these "good Christians" politicized, narcissistic liars.

Edited October 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

Is a university campus considered private or public property? If classified as private, the university, if they want to can deny anyone access to the facilities without any legal repercussions.

[Argus]

This isn't really a black and white issue. It depends on how other groups are treated, for example. If they were pushed off to the side where other groups were permitted to demonstrate or hold meetings in that area then there needs to be justification. How large are these posters? I think that enormous, graphic posters are not so much free speech as free shouting. You have a right to speak your mind but you do not have a right to force others to listen. Similarly, blowing up graphic posters of whatever so that those passing by cannot avoid seeing them seems to me to be stepping across that line into forcing others to look. You have a right to speak, but if you're going to scream then go somewhere else where it doesn't intrude on the unwilling.

Again,this is not a matter of offensive. I find those anti-Israel demos offensive (and stupid) but I wouldn't shut them down unless they became too loud or had huge graphic posters that intruded on people's consciousness as they came near.

[Evening Star]

They are large and graphic: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/gap.html

[Shady]

This is just the latest example of leftwing fascism.

[guyser]

This is just the latest example of leftwing fascism.

Now thats funny!

Wrong, but funny.

[Michael Hardner]

well at the U of C they were given clear direction where and how they could have their little demonstration, they defied the directions and were removed...people have a right to protest but others have the right not to be offended and they were not given that option by the protestors...

Thanks, wyly and Punked, I wasn't aware.

[Shady]

well at the U of C they were given clear direction where and how they could have their little demonstration, they defied the directions and were removed...people have a right to protest but others have the right not to be offended and they were not given that option by the protestors...

Um, that's complete nonsense. There's no so-called right not to be offended. Many people are offended by Israeli Apartheid Week. And for some reason, that demonstration isn't relegated by the same restrictions and directions from the University. It's pretty obvious why. Just another example of leftwing fascism. Freedom of speech from me but not for thee. Unless it's something you agree with.

Pathetic and completely un-Canadian. You should be ashamed of yourselves. All of you.

[ToadBrother]

I think universities should be public property and the group should not be censored. I also think they're nutters though. Michael Coren and Claire Hoy (both pro-life) schooled Stephanie Gray on the meaning of "genocide" in the second clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV5hiWcMy20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UB5e8LBtUY&NR=1

This is always a tough call. The courts generally do recognize in these matters notions of community standards and decency. It can't be overarching, such that it suppresses the right to speech and expression, but at the same time a public body like the town council, and probably a university administration, can limit certain modes of expression.

With extremely graphic posters, I think the argument can be made that those are not appropriate in the campus setting. This is not suppressing the group's right to protest or make their opinions known, but rather limiting more extreme displays. This is no different than, say, a web board like MLW not allowing extreme vulgarity. This hardly impinges on someone's ability to debate or make their opinions known, but simply sets up some reasonable standards of conduct.

If they were, say, banning all speech that is negative towards abortion on campus, then I'd be opposed, because that's not a reasonable restriction. People gathering to make their opinion on abortion known should not be restricted or banned. But if they're walking around with graphic posters of aborted fetuses, there's a clear argument for a level of community standards to come into play, sort of like how book stores are not banned from selling Penthouse, but they have to take some reasonable steps to assure young children cannot easily view or access such literature.

Edited October 7, 2010 by ToadBrother