On June 10, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review
a Colorado appeals court decision banning anti-abortion activists from
displaying “gruesome images” of mutilated fetuses that might be seen by
children.
The case that precipitated the appeals court ruling,
Scott v. St. John’s Church in the Wilderness, concerns an anti-abortion protest
that took place several years ago on a public sidewalk near a Denver church – a
church the protesters believed had fallen away from the teachings of the Bible
by supporting abortion.
Although the protest couldn’t be seen or heard from
within the church, the demonstration was timed to coincide with the church’s
outdoor Palm Sunday procession.
Parishioners, including children, could look across
the street and see the graphic images carried by the picketers.
According to the appeals court, censoring the speech
of anti-abortion protesters is justified because the state has a compelling
interest in “protecting children from certain images of aborted fetuses and
dead bodies.”
The court’s concern for the sensibilities of
children is understandable. But consider the dangers of restricting content of
political speech in public spaces merely because children might be disturbed by
the message.
As the petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn
the decision points out, “children under 12 are present in many locations. They
often come with their families to parks. They accompany their parents to go
shopping… Their parents drive them down streets, from which they can see
protesters on sidewalks. If the decision below is allowed to stand, speech in
all these places could be restricted.”
Moreover, compelling pro-lifers to tone down their
message in public places deprives the movement of one its most effective tools.
Opponents of abortion use graphic images precisely
because photographs convey a message about what they believe is the brutality
of abortion – a message that can’t be delivered in words alone.
If government can ban pro-life groups from
displaying “gruesome images” because they might upset children, government
could also ban animal rights activists, anti-war protesters, and any number of
other groups from employing potentially disturbing photographs to promote their
cause.
Lower courts have been divided about the power of
government to put content-based restrictions on political visual messages in
public places in order to shield children. Such images enjoy higher First
Amendment protection in some places than in others.
That’s why it is disappointing that the Supreme
Court did not take the Colorado case as an opportunity to clear up the
confusion – and, one would hope, make clear that government may not restrict
robust political speech in the public square anywhere in America.
After all, the ability to “shock the conscience”
depends on the right to shock the viewer – a right that is at the very heart of
free speech.
About the author: Charles C. Haynes is director of
the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001. Web: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/.
E-mail: chaynes[at]freedomforum.org.
This article was published by the First Amendment
Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment