Freedom of Speech - Carlton U. and Anti Abortion Extremists

[guyser]

It's pretty obvious why.

Oh do tell....we all await your response.

[wyly]

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.

that sums up the Universities take on it...

this was going on for quite some time and people were offended by the graphic nature of their posters...if it was just passing out leaflets and non-graphic posters there wouldn't have been a issue...but they went for the shock value and people were not impressed...

[scribblet]

That's my take too.

I have to wonder if this little group of zealots would also deny women the right to contraceptives including the birth control pill. I've read on other sites extremist views such as banning the pill because it 'causes abortions'. Seems to me some of these people must have a real hate on for women.

[Saipan]

Unlike USA where there's a true freedom, and Ben Netanyahu can speak at university just like Ahmadinejad, in Canada that is not so. Only politically correct speaches are allowed. Anything else has to be approved, edited and certified.

[Mr.Canada]

Abortion is legal.

Not everyone agrees with abortion nor do they need to.

What's the problem with putting a different point of view out there?

Is the "socialist" view the only view allowed now?

This is absurd. Post secondary institutions are for higher learning and learning from different points of view not making everyone some socialist clone where everyone thinks and behaves exactly the same way.

What is this 1984 with thought police?

[ToadBrother]

Abortion is legal.

Not everyone agrees with abortion nor do they need to.

What's the problem with putting a different point of view out there?

Is the "socialist" view the only view allowed now?

This is absurd. Post secondary institutions are for higher learning and learning from different points of view not making everyone some socialist clone where everyone thinks and behaves exactly the same way.

What is this 1984 with thought police?

This from a guy who complains about Gay Pride Parades. Clearly you don't mind the notion of "community standards" when it would appear to support your point of view, but boy, apply it against some group you're in harmony with, and suddenly it's "HELP HELP! We're being oppressed!"

As I said earlier, there seems to have been no problem with this group per se, but rather with very graphic signage. Get rid of that signage, and the problem goes away. You right to express yourself should be as close to unlimited as possible, the ways in which you express yourself should not, unless you think I should be able to stand out on the sidewalk beside your house at 3am with a bullhorn saying my piece.

[Bonam]

Abortion is legal.

Not everyone agrees with abortion nor do they need to.

What's the problem with putting a different point of view out there?

Is the "socialist" view the only view allowed now?

This is absurd. Post secondary institutions are for higher learning and learning from different points of view not making everyone some socialist clone where everyone thinks and behaves exactly the same way.

What is this 1984 with thought police?

Look, I wholly agree with the freedom of speech argument. But have you seen these posters? We are not talking about a tasteful or intelligent display here. We are talking about the vilest imagery that these guys could possibly come up with. I have literally seen people come across these unaware of what they would see and puke. Pictures of mangled bloody fetuses, pictures of women impaled through the stomach with bayonets, among others.

The standards of "decency" in our society are completely warped. If someone wanted to put up a poster of a beautiful naked woman in the same spot, that would be automatically disallowed. But apparently a burnt, dead, woman with a bayonet through her middle and a mangled fetus lying nearby is ok. Which do you think would be the more disturbing for passersby? Why is the first ruled out, but not the second?

Edited October 8, 2010 by Bonam

[guyser]

Unlike USA where there's a true freedom,

Well,you'd be wise to research that. Or not.

Revel in ignorance should you wish

[wyly]

Abortion is legal.

Not everyone agrees with abortion nor do they need to.

What's the problem with putting a different point of view out there?

Is the "socialist" view the only view allowed now?

This is absurd. Post secondary institutions are for higher learning and learning from different points of view not making everyone some socialist clone where everyone thinks and behaves exactly the same way.

What is this 1984 with thought police?

public universities are generally extremely tolerant if some organization has annoyed the student union and student body to such an extent that they are removed indicates they'll really pissed off a lot of people...at the U of C's this dispute has been going on for at least 4 years, 4 years of requests to discreetly display graphic posters and not disrupt campus life was ignored...they were halted because they refused to obey campus rules, they were offensive and disruptive and refused compromise... Edited October 8, 2010 by wyly

[Aaron]

I think the protester's message could be a reasonably accurate one under certain idealogical and philosophical perspectives, and I do not believe that these protests have anything to do with suppressing women's rights. These protests are rather more like an advertising campaign. They are trying to convince people that abortion is the wrong choice. This has little to do with taking away a woman's choice and more to do with educating society on what is morally correct behavior. Just because a behavior is immoral, does not mean it needs to be outlawed. An immoral act can also be a free choice, as I'm sure there are many such examples in our society! I believe that abortion should definitely be free choice, but that is beside the point. These people want to convince us that it is an immoral and dishonorable act; which could very well be true, regardless of how much this idea offends those who are emotionally forced to resort to it, or those, such as myself, who support such women. The truth can be offensive to our ideals. It doesn't make it less true.

That said, I think these protester's are rather unintelligent in their approach and that they will not get through to anyone with such an approach to delivering their message. If they wish to educate people, than it is rather counterproductive to force perceivably offensive material upon them. Your audience is not going to be very receptive of your message under such conditions.

Furthermore (to the main purpose of this thread), citizens should not be allowed to express their views wherever and however they please. Society would come rather messy if such rights were enforced. So I guess the real question is, should this particular expression of views be legal. I do agree with the student's that they are on public grounds (and or should have the right to be on private grounds of a university they pay tuition at). But again, I don't agree that just because a place is public, that we can express, however and wherever we please, our views.

For instance; how would you like it if someone were to ride public transit with a loud speaker, blasting their political opinions in your ears? There has to be some level of respect and courtesy to those you wish to convey your message. On the other hand, your audience may vary in opinion on whether your political expression is tolerable or not.

Hmmm. A hypothetical situation. Lets say you had an important message to get out that would save humanity, but nobody was willing to listen. What would you do? Sure, for these people, their message may or may not save humanity; that is a rather complex philosophical question. But these people probably believe that they are trying to save humanity. So for for one second, try to imagine that you sincerely believe you are trying to save humanity by getting a message out to the public, but the public did not want to hear your message and shrugged and laughed you away as a lunatic. What would you do?

Hehe funny. The more I think about it, the more I realize that many people in our individualistic society would not give a shit about humanity, so I'll add one more clause to my hypothetical situation. Lets say you deeply care about the fate of society. Lets say that you are an extremely intelligent math-mathematician for example and that you have calculated that the earth will be obliterated by a cosmic phenomenon unless humanity acts quickly and decisively - but anyone you bring your 50 page mathematical derivation to just shrugged and laughed at you...? Really! I find the philosophical implications brought about by this hypothetical situation quite interesting and it somewhat sheds light on the situation a lot of these fanatics are in. Lets try to understand their situation here, because this is obviously something these people feel very strongly about and I'm sure has some potential merit under many a philosophical perspective.

So should they be allowed to advertise their cause in such a fashion and place? I say no. And I say the question of whether they should or shouldn't is up to the public. They should be required to utilize more intelligent and respectable tactics in their campaign to educate people on the immorality of abortion, simply because their approach is too uncourteous to the sensibilities of their fellow students.

Oh... and if I were the mathematician trying to save the planet, I would first try to lure my audience in with an intriguing argument that exemplifies insight and expertise on the topic, and gradually unfold my perspective in a fashion that eludes the offenses of my fellow humans. I would not jump up and down through the streets screaming like a lunatic - which would be comparable in thoughtlessness and lack of consideration of the approach of these individuals. Hehe. I guess then, the question is "but what if you are a lunatic? then what do you do?"; well, I guess in that case, the fate of humanity is hopeless ;-)

Look, I wholly agree with the freedom of speech argument. But have you seen these posters? We are not talking about a tasteful or intelligent display here. We are talking about the vilest imagery that these guys could possibly come up with. I have literally seen people come across these unaware of what they would see and puke. Pictures of mangled bloody fetuses, pictures of women impaled through the stomach with bayonets, among others.

The standards of "decency" in our society are completely warped. If someone wanted to put up a poster of a beautiful naked woman in the same spot, that would be automatically disallowed. But apparently a burnt, dead, woman with a bayonet through her middle and a mangled fetus lying nearby is ok. Which do you think would be the more disturbing for passersby? Why is the first ruled out, but not the second?

[Aaron]

I would argue that freedom is not true unless we live in an openly and freely educated society and that the lack of education in North America is what truly imprisons us all like herd animals. I perceive that the availability of education is really poor due to numerous factors, particularly in North America, but, since I still find myself lacking in education and understanding, I guess I will never know for sure :-( Maybe the corporate gods of the world will tell me one day :-)

Anyway, an argument for another thread...

Well,you'd be wise to research that. Or not.

Revel in ignorance should you wish

[wyly]

double post

Edited October 8, 2010 by wyly

[Saipan]

Well,you'd be wise to research that. Or not.

Revel in ignorance should you wish

Same to you

[guyser]

Same to you

I assure you I have.

And your assertion that there is true freedom in the USA could not be more wrong.

But like I said, you are free to revel in your ignorance.

[Mr.Canada]

Look, I wholly agree with the freedom of speech argument. But have you seen these posters? We are not talking about a tasteful or intelligent display here. We are talking about the vilest imagery that these guys could possibly come up with. I have literally seen people come across these unaware of what they would see and puke. Pictures of mangled bloody fetuses, pictures of women impaled through the stomach with bayonets, among others.

The standards of "decency" in our society are completely warped. If someone wanted to put up a poster of a beautiful naked woman in the same spot, that would be automatically disallowed. But apparently a burnt, dead, woman with a bayonet through her middle and a mangled fetus lying nearby is ok. Which do you think would be the more disturbing for passersby? Why is the first ruled out, but not the second?

Sure, it's shocking. That's the intent. Is any of what's being shown in the photographs an untrue representation of what an abortion looks like?

If it is then I'd have a problem with it. If it isn't then people need to face the reality of what abortion looks like. Socialists like things to remain warm and fuzzy. Most women have never had an abortion or know what it entails.

Until it has a picture it's just a word, mostly without meaning. It's just a word for progressives to scream about. It becomes something real once a visual is provided.

Is the pro abortion crowd worried they may lose supporters because of these placards?

Sounds like they must be.

People have the right to expression in this country and the right to assembly. The left screams this constantly. The rules don't change because you don't like the message.

[guyser]

This is rich....

People have the right to expression in this country and the right to assembly. The left screams this constantly. The rules don't change because you don't like the message.

...except when it applies to Gays and the parade.

Psst....ya gots a lil mayo on your chin from the parade.

[ToadBrother]

Sure, it's shocking. That's the intent. Is any of what's being shown in the photographs an untrue representation of what an abortion looks like?

If it is then I'd have a problem with it. If it isn't then people need to face the reality of what abortion looks like. Socialists like things to remain warm and fuzzy. Most women have never had an abortion or know what it entails.

I think most women have a pretty good idea.

Until it has a picture it's just a word, mostly without meaning. It's just a word for progressives to scream about. It becomes something real once a visual is provided.

Is the pro abortion crowd worried they may lose supporters because of these placards?

Sounds like they must be.

People have the right to expression in this country and the right to assembly. The left screams this constantly. The rules don't change because you don't like the message.

Like I said. You're all for community standards when you're letting your homophobia hang out, but boy oh boy, if it's about something on your side of the offense, it's evil socialists.

For the record, Mr. D, I know a few socialists who don't like abortion either. Socialism is for the most part about economics. I've seen socially conservative NDPers aplenty in my time.

The posters are indecent, period, and the University has every right to ban them. This group isn't being oppressed or censored. There's no ban on their message, just on a rather vile way of communicating.

Edited October 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Mr.Canada]

The posters are indecent, period, and the University has every right to ban them. This group isn't being oppressed or censored. There's no ban on their message, just on a rather vile way of communicating.

As I've said the left wouldn't be screaming if they didn't think that the posters are working. As in women thinking twice about having an abortion. The left only wants more women to have abortions so we have to import more immigrants to displace the white folks of Canada. The large majority of women who get abortions are white.

Smashing windows and looting in Toronto during a protest is fine as is students equating Israel to Nazi Germany and apartheid S. Africa but don't you dare show a picture of an abortion!

We got it....thank you.

[Bonam]

Sure, it's shocking. That's the intent. Is any of what's being shown in the photographs an untrue representation of what an abortion looks like?

If it is then I'd have a problem with it. If it isn't then people need to face the reality of what abortion looks like. Socialists like things to remain warm and fuzzy. Most women have never had an abortion or know what it entails.

Until it has a picture it's just a word, mostly without meaning. It's just a word for progressives to scream about. It becomes something real once a visual is provided.

Is the pro abortion crowd worried they may lose supporters because of these placards?

Sounds like they must be.

People have the right to expression in this country and the right to assembly. The left screams this constantly. The rules don't change because you don't like the message.

No, it's not a "true representation" of what abortion looks like. Unless you know some doctors that perform abortions by impaling women through their middle with bayonets and leaving the mangled bloody fetuses lying around in fields. I don't know how you can even ask the question based on what I've described in those posters.

[guyser]

No, it's not a "true representation" of what abortion looks like. Unless you know some doctors that perform abortions by impaling women through their middle with bayonets and leaving the mangled bloody fetuses lying around in fields. I don't know how you can even ask the question based on what I've described in those posters.

While reprehensible, the posters are afterall only pictures.

Be what they are,they can show them where the school admins decide they can. No defiance of freedom of speech.

I had the same issue in Hunstville last spring. It was an anit-abortion group showiong dismembered fetus' and so on. They had them on the main street. The problem is it was dumb when kids were present, and for that reason alone they probably lost some people who supported them.

The message is fine, the medium was wrong.

[Bonam]

While reprehensible, the posters are afterall only pictures.

Be what they are,they can show them where the school admins decide they can. No defiance of freedom of speech.

I had the same issue in Hunstville last spring. It was an anit-abortion group showiong dismembered fetus' and so on. They had them on the main street. The problem is it was dumb when kids were present, and for that reason alone they probably lost some people who supported them.

The message is fine, the medium was wrong.

I agree and that's why I say that despite being reprehensible, freedom of speech comes first. Anyway, the message is "fine" only in that any message is "fine". Equating abortion with genocide is, of course, complete nonsense.

[Mr.Canada]

I agree and that's why I say that despite being reprehensible, freedom of speech comes first. Anyway, the message is "fine" only in that any message is "fine". Equating abortion with genocide is, of course, complete nonsense.

However equating Israel to Nazi Germany or apartheid S. Africa is just fine. Not allowing Ms. Coulter to speak at Uni is just fine as well.

So does the University call you Bonam and you get to decide which groups messages will be heard and which ones will be suppressed?

[ToadBrother]

However equating Israel to Nazi Germany or apartheid S. Africa is just fine. Not allowing Ms. Coulter to speak at Uni is just fine as well.

So does the University call you Bonam and you get to decide which groups messages will be heard and which ones will be suppressed?

I think Bonam, indeed all of us, have made the point here that Carlton University is infringing on no one's rights by banning this particular group's "advertising" campaign. They are certainly free to make their message heard, to involve themselves in debates, etc. But there is a certain level of basic public decency here. Just like my freedom of expression doesn't mean I'm allowed to stand out on the street outside your house at 3am with a bullhorn, these guys are not allowed to use vulgar graphic imagery in a public space in the University.

You only see a problem because you're a pro-lifer. You're intellectually and emotionally incapable of seeing this from an unbiased point of view. The delicious irony is that you're the one who was making all the noise about exposed penises at Gay Pride parades.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mr. Canada.

Edited October 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[guyser]

Not allowing Ms. Coulter to speak at Uni is just fine as well.

Ohhhhh...dispensing with facts now are we?

Please show us where the Univ did "not allow Ms. Coulter to speak". ?

So does the University call you Bonam and you get to decide which groups messages will be heard and which ones will be suppressed?

They may want to since a reasoned normal expectation of smarts is what they are after.

Note to you Mr C, dont sit by the phone waiting for them to call you. Ottawa has all the idiots they need for now.

[guyser]

Just like my freedom of expression doesn't mean I'm allowed to stand out on the street outside your house at 3am with a bullhorn, these guys are not allowed to use vulgar graphic imagery in a public space in the University.

Careful, you are introducing variables that affect your point.

You only see a problem because you're a pro-lifer. You're intellectually and emotionally incapable of seeing this from an unbiased point of view. The delicious irony is that you're the one who was making all the noise about exposed penises at Gay Pride parades.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mr. Canada.

Spot on !