Apparently, if you live in a Ninth Circuit state (California, et al), the dismembered-fetus-picture truck is soon to join the ice cream truck outside the schoolhouse. Ruling on the issue just yesterday, the Ninth Circuit greenlit the use of abortion images outside schools as the latest weapon in the anti-choice activists’ arsenal, reaching a conclusion that’s questionable on the law, and emblematic of the principle that the first amendment requires us to embrace the bad with the good. I’ve divided this post into two sections; if you want, please feel free to skip “the law” to get to “the rant.”
The Law
You can get a little bit of the legal background at Education Week’s School Law Blog. Doctrinally, this ruling is a little bit surprising: owing to the traditional respect for speech in the open air and on the streets, the state can’t ban controversial commecial speech items, like smoking ads, near schools, but the Supreme Court has previously outlawed disruptive speech near schools (Grayned v. Rockford). Why Grayned doesn’t control here is beyond me.
Also, courts have shown themselves quite flexible when dealing with extremely offensive speech near sensitive locations. It ought to be unsurprising that a majority of these “offensive speech in sensitive locales” cases come up in the context of anti-choice abortion protestors and picketers, and courts have generally balanced the rights, handing neither side a sound victory, but letting protestors have their way in a less gruesome, less intrusive manner.
For example, law limits the traditional right to protest in the streets to prevent anti-choice protestors from screaming outside a politicians house (Frisby v. Schultz), and in no less than three major Supreme Court cases, the Justices have balanced the protestors’ rights to be insane against the clinicians and patients’ rights to be free of insanity, offensive yelling, and harassment, coming up with solid compromises allowing protests while protecting patient privacy and reasonable expectations of non-harassment (Madsen, Schenck, Hill). In short, the Grayned principle, regarding disruptive speech near schools, and the Madsen/Schenck/Hill balancing tests, all had to go out the window for the Ninth Circuit to decide this case the way it did. I’m a little confused. But enough of the law. I can’t hold in the rage any longer.
The Rant
Seriously, who the hell do these people think they are? I admit that a lot of first amendment cases these days are about finding out just how many people the law will let you piss off, but just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you ought to do it. These are people who will stand outside your home if you’re a doctor at a women’s clinic, make “WANTED” posters with your name on it and circulate it to murderers, harass you on your way to Planned Parenthood – even if you’re just there to get a yearly checkup – and then turn around thank God for the chance to so harass you. While the first amendment empowers the lunatics of the world to choose that course, it does not require them to do so.
I’d be a lot more convinced about the seriousness of the pro-life anti-choice movement’s commitment to “the sanctity of life” if they showed a little more concern for decency, and the line between “debate” and “harassment,” in their day-to-day activities. When a movement becomes a race to the bottom, to shock the most, to scare the most, to disgust the most, it’s time to question the movement’s direction and its real purpose. If their end is so vaunted, holy, and sacred, then their means ought to matter. And I get called “biased,” rest assured that I’d say the same thing about any movement that stooped to these inane tactics. The first amendment lets us speak our mind; but we don’t have to be jerks about it, nor should we. The first amendment is a right and a responsibility to engage in good speech; the right without the responsibility undermines society and democracy.
Picketers, get these trucks away from our kids. I wouldn’t shove gay porn down your kids’ throats, or plaster it on trucks near schools; why would you do this, just because you can?
It was a neat idea to separate the law and the commentary.
I agree with you and I think these people are doing their own side a huge disservice. Abortion is a delicate issue where good and reasonable people can disagree. And these truck people are doing their best to make it look like that’s not the case at all (that is, to be pro-life is to side with wackos like these). I think the choice of medium – which is apparently about to become more widely seen – is going to inspire a big-time backlash.
Posted by Collin | July 3, 2008, 10:14 amThanks buddy! I might keep doing that….
And yes, exactly. They’re going to screw themselves out of making their point in a persuasive manner, and make the world a grosser place while doing it. Ugh!
Posted by Ames | July 3, 2008, 10:16 amThat’s it! I’m going to start driving my truck by that school with enormous posters of swollen, infected hemorrhoids.
Just because these picketers have won their right to be low class and offensive does not mean they will walk away with the trophy in the “race to the bottom” category!
Posted by Lunch Admin. | July 3, 2008, 10:33 amThat was a good choice, on more than purely aesthetic terms, to separate the legal section from the rant. I also appreciate that you even had a legal section in the first place, which I found more interesting and informative than the rant following it (no offense, Ames : ) ). Keep up the good work!
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | July 3, 2008, 11:52 amHeh, good timing Ames. On my way to work, every day, I pass by a women’s clinic. Every day, there are protestors. Which I don’t mind much, except now that summer has rolled around. Kids are out of school, so churches have recruited highschoolers to picket. That, too, in itself isn’t bad. Except the increased organization has been combined with the use of exactly the same imagery. The highschoolers and organizers stand along the road with large, blown-up posters of dismembered fetuses.
It’s disgusting, and has spurred me to action, all right. It made me lose all respect for the protesters, and instead of quietly admiring their resolve, I now want to organize against them.
I’m at a loss for how to start, though. Any ideas? I could easily get them media attention, but I’d rather not expose their message to more people than necessary.
Posted by Matt | July 3, 2008, 7:15 pmMatt, unnamed-girlfriend-whom-you-know and I were talking about that… I’d LOVE to help. They need some pushback, but I don’t know how to do it. Let’s think. Call this an open thread on it?
Posted by Ames | July 3, 2008, 10:47 pmI remember watching a documentary about the Matthew Shepard murder. Phred Phelps and his Wackaloon Babtist Choich showed up to protest. And then …
From Wikipedia:
Perhaps someone could organize similar action.
Of course, a couple dozen people with paintball guns (blue–not red) could acheive a similar effect very quickly.
Posted by Metro | July 5, 2008, 3:52 amCheck out the successful ‘Ladies Against Women’ [http://www.ladiesagainstwomen.com/] group.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | July 7, 2008, 9:58 am