¹ū¶³“«Ć½app¹Ł·½

Table of Contents

Are pictures of abortion ā€˜hate speech?ā€™

¹ū¶³“«Ć½app¹Ł·½

FIRE

Last week, Phi Beta Cons a in the Bellingham (Wash.) Herald describing yet another instance of vandalism of a pro-life display. According to the Herald, Western Washington University student David Janus Zhang was so enraged by a ā€œdisplay showing pictures of aborted fetuses next to images of genocideā€ that he jumped over a fence and tried to destroy it. Zhang inflicted $2,700 worth of damage in the course of what a university police officer called ā€œa rampage.ā€ He was arrested and jailed; he now faces charges of malicious mischief and disorderly conduct charges.

Now, in response to the anti-abortion display, some students at Western Washington University are . The ā€œhate speechā€ in question appears to have consisted of the aborted fetus display itself. As the lead organizer of the campaign for a hate speech ban told The Western Front student newspaper:

Pierson said Westernā€™s administration doesnā€™t protect students from groups that bring hate speech to campus. This spurred her to start the petition, she said.

ā€œI felt that I was being targeted by hate speech via the display and knew other people who felt the same way, so I began the petition with the help of some friends as a way for studentsā€™ and facultyā€™s concerns to be recognized,ā€ Pierson said.

Thankfully, the administration of Western Washington University doesnā€™t appear to want any part of this movement to censor controversial speech. As one administrator said:

ā€œAll I can do is explain what constitutes free speech,ā€ Schuster said. ā€œIā€™m not a lawyer, but I know based on Supreme Court decisions that itā€™s appropriate to have these dialogues on campus and we canā€™t restrict peoplesā€™s ability to have them. We can set a time, place and manner although the entire campus is a free speech area.ā€

This is good news. Although the articleā€™s description of speech policies on Western Washingtonā€™s campus raises some red flags, administrators seem to be resisting the urge to add new, restrictive regulations despite the pressure to enact a code that would almost surely be unconstitutional. After all, as FIREoften points out, there is no exception to the First Amendment that would make it permissible to ban so-called ā€œhate speech.ā€

This affair appears to be part of an emerging nationwide trend of pro-life displays being vandalized on college campuses. Last month, Greg blogged on a situation at Northern Kentucky University where a pro-life exhibit of 400 crosses in the ground was destroyed in an effort led by an NKU professor. And at Princeton University, a similar display was destroyed just a week later. According to The Daily Princetonian, a club called Princeton Pro-Life had put up ā€œ347 flagsā€¦[that] were meant to represent the lives of students who might have become members of the Universityā€™s Class of 2010 had abortion not been legalized.ā€ That on April 17. But then, in the wee hours of the morning of April 20, , trampled and altered the clubā€™s signage, and peppered the area with coat hangers. Pro-choice banners in the area were also destroyed; it is not known if the same vandals were responsible for both incidents.

Recent Articles

FIREā€™s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share