williams473
Well-known
Okay so here is a question that touches on several hot-button issues in the U.S, and loosely ties into photography.
This morning on my way to work I had to drive through a group of anti-Obama protestors who's main issue is abortion. They were saying all kinds of things like "Obama is a murderer" and "Obama supports child-murder." Even though those comments are ridiculous, they are covered by free speech and thus, I'm fine with them saying whatever they want. I don't know what these people expect to achieve, but more power to them - they just had as conservative a President as we'll see and nothing changed on abortion in 8 years, but, if you want to demonstrate, rock on.
However, to go with their slogans these people had 6 foot high signs with massive color images of bloody, aborted fetuses. Now here's the problem I have with this - these images are posted next to public roads for all to see - including children. I find this detestable. Whenever something graphic airs on TV, there is always a warning (it's in fact the law) that "this program contains graphic subject matter that may not be suitable for some viewers." Well, to me bloody fetuses is not suitable subject matter for children, to say nothing of the rest of us who are aware of what is involved in an abortion, but would rather not be forced to see these images without warning.
I am anti-war, but I would NEVER post images of dead U.S. soldiers and dead Iraqi civilians in public, although these images may be very powerful in arguing against the war. I agree that seeing an aborted fetus is a powerful way for these people to make their point as well, but you shouldn't be allowed to force these images on the public without fair warning - especially because of the exposure of the images on CHILDREN.
I think the police should confiscate such signs, just like the FCC would fine a television station for airing a live murder or some other such graphic content. Otherwise, it should be a free for all and I will march with still images of U.S. military police forcing un-tried Afghan men to masturbate while standing nude in front of a snarling attack dog. I mean, where's the line?
This morning on my way to work I had to drive through a group of anti-Obama protestors who's main issue is abortion. They were saying all kinds of things like "Obama is a murderer" and "Obama supports child-murder." Even though those comments are ridiculous, they are covered by free speech and thus, I'm fine with them saying whatever they want. I don't know what these people expect to achieve, but more power to them - they just had as conservative a President as we'll see and nothing changed on abortion in 8 years, but, if you want to demonstrate, rock on.
However, to go with their slogans these people had 6 foot high signs with massive color images of bloody, aborted fetuses. Now here's the problem I have with this - these images are posted next to public roads for all to see - including children. I find this detestable. Whenever something graphic airs on TV, there is always a warning (it's in fact the law) that "this program contains graphic subject matter that may not be suitable for some viewers." Well, to me bloody fetuses is not suitable subject matter for children, to say nothing of the rest of us who are aware of what is involved in an abortion, but would rather not be forced to see these images without warning.
I am anti-war, but I would NEVER post images of dead U.S. soldiers and dead Iraqi civilians in public, although these images may be very powerful in arguing against the war. I agree that seeing an aborted fetus is a powerful way for these people to make their point as well, but you shouldn't be allowed to force these images on the public without fair warning - especially because of the exposure of the images on CHILDREN.
I think the police should confiscate such signs, just like the FCC would fine a television station for airing a live murder or some other such graphic content. Otherwise, it should be a free for all and I will march with still images of U.S. military police forcing un-tried Afghan men to masturbate while standing nude in front of a snarling attack dog. I mean, where's the line?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Political speech is the most highly protected.
There is no equivalence to graphic subject matter on TV.
On the other hand, if you want to put ME in charge of deciding what is acceptable, that'll work out just fine.
I'm not willing to put YOU in charge though...just ME.
There is no equivalence to graphic subject matter on TV.
On the other hand, if you want to put ME in charge of deciding what is acceptable, that'll work out just fine.
I'm not willing to put YOU in charge though...just ME.
dmr
Registered Abuser
I am staunchly pro-choice. I find these tactics offensive and in general, in poor taste.
However, I do support their right to do this, as offensive as it is.
IANAL, but from a legal standpoint, I don't see any prior restraint on this kind of expression.
However, I do support their right to do this, as offensive as it is.
IANAL, but from a legal standpoint, I don't see any prior restraint on this kind of expression.
williams473
Well-known
Daze,
I agree political speech should be protected - I'm all for it. But the question here is where do we draw the line for what is considered speech? Is the picture of a bloody aborted fetus appropriate for every person in our society to have to look at whether they want to or not? If all they were doing was SPEAKING freely, I could just ignore them, turn up the radio etc. But do I have to blindfold my kids as I drive by because these people are displaying these massive abhorent graphics? The posters are so large that they are obviously intended to be seen whether you want to look or not. It's obnoxious and sick. I'm not against speech, and I draw a parallel to TV, because of the graphical nature of their signs. Their case is not strong enough to be made through plain speech I guess - they need to resort to shock value.
DMR, I agree that I don't think there is a really a precedent for this. I would like to see someone get a group like this in the courts so we can hash it out.
I agree political speech should be protected - I'm all for it. But the question here is where do we draw the line for what is considered speech? Is the picture of a bloody aborted fetus appropriate for every person in our society to have to look at whether they want to or not? If all they were doing was SPEAKING freely, I could just ignore them, turn up the radio etc. But do I have to blindfold my kids as I drive by because these people are displaying these massive abhorent graphics? The posters are so large that they are obviously intended to be seen whether you want to look or not. It's obnoxious and sick. I'm not against speech, and I draw a parallel to TV, because of the graphical nature of their signs. Their case is not strong enough to be made through plain speech I guess - they need to resort to shock value.
DMR, I agree that I don't think there is a really a precedent for this. I would like to see someone get a group like this in the courts so we can hash it out.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'd say get right there next to them with equal sized images of the war. See how long you last before getting busted. Is there is a clear double standard?
williams473
Well-known
Or, how 'bout this scenario: How long do you think I could stand on a street corner with a 6 foot tall, 4 foot wide color photograph of 2 people making love, without any genitalia censored? Maybe even two gay people? I bet that would last all of a couple minutes before the police hauled me away. A double standard indeed.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I was about to make a very similar point, but you beat me to it.
A lot of people seem to believe that they have an absolute right to shove their beliefs in your face, and that's 'free speech', but if you shove your beliefs in their face you deserve to be beaten senseless and locked up (not necessarily in that order -- which is not an attack on the police, but on those who think the police should do this).
Note: this is about PHOTOGRAPHY, and what photographs you can display (with impunity) in public.
Cheers,
Roger
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Hmmm makes me wander what would happen if you would get out of the car and take a picture of them.
See how far they vision of freedom of speech and information gathering goes....
See how far they vision of freedom of speech and information gathering goes....
dmr
Registered Abuser
The anti-choice folks use the hideous and gruesome photos to attract attention and sensationalize!
If you have worked in a hospital, you have seen far worse images (worse really is not the word I want here, but you get what I mean), under far more appropriate circumstances.
These images are intended to shock, and intended to advance a political cause. Images of something like, say, a jawbone reconstruction, would be equally gruesome to the Teeming Millions, I'm sure.
If you have worked in a hospital, you have seen far worse images (worse really is not the word I want here, but you get what I mean), under far more appropriate circumstances.
These images are intended to shock, and intended to advance a political cause. Images of something like, say, a jawbone reconstruction, would be equally gruesome to the Teeming Millions, I'm sure.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
No, that's pornography- so not allowed. I bet though even a picture of a gay couple kissing would get one busted in a lot of the US.
Gumby
Veteran
What is illegal about that?
ebolton
Number 7614
Those 6 foot pictures should be illegal. They probably are illegal, though I guess a lawyer would better judge that. They violate the sensibilities of the community they are displayed in, and that is precisely why they are used. They know it will disturb people, enrage people, and generally violate others right to go about their business without being psychologically (at least) assaulted. They also know it is a political hot button, and to avoid court time and costs no authority will touch them, so they consider it a good tactic. I think it's despicable, and their use of the tactic does just as much as any more rational argument to keep me Pro Choice.
Gumby
Veteran
What would the charge be... annoying people who have differing ethics, morales, or values?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Public decency laws would likely be used against such imagery. But attempts to use those same laws against the fetus images would turn it into a religious defamation issue. My take on it anyway.
George S.
How many is enough?
I think you're uncomfortable with the reality of abortion and are hiding behind the argument that your children may see those signs if you drive by. We always want to sweep aside the things that make us uncomfortable. Build the homeless shelter on "the other side" of town. Censorship of any kind does no one any good. Reminds me of Bush's ban on photos of our dead soldier's flag draped coffins arriving at Dover AFB. Not to mention the self-censored TV news images of the Vietnam War, after threats by our government.
I think if more people would be exposed to what an abortion looks like, or how they are performed, there'd be less of the pro-choice crowd. Know why the doctor reaches inside the woman and breaks the fetus's skull and sucks out the brain? Because a lot of fetuses were ripped out and still were breathing on their own, complicating matters for all involved in the procedure. The baby would then be laid aside and all would hope it died quickly.
Sorry, but you made your choice when you said yes to sex, too late for a do-over.
I think if more people would be exposed to what an abortion looks like, or how they are performed, there'd be less of the pro-choice crowd. Know why the doctor reaches inside the woman and breaks the fetus's skull and sucks out the brain? Because a lot of fetuses were ripped out and still were breathing on their own, complicating matters for all involved in the procedure. The baby would then be laid aside and all would hope it died quickly.
Sorry, but you made your choice when you said yes to sex, too late for a do-over.
Gumby
Veteran
I understand where you are coming from, but in my part of the civilized world "public decency laws" have limits and definitions.
Public depictions of sexual intercourse, spousal abuse depictions, racial/religious violence, and sexual depictions of children are a legal/criminal problem; Pictures of corpses, feces, homeless/mentally ill people, or even Pitxu's backside is considered by some to be rude/annoying but not a legal/criminal problem.
If pro-choice folks don't like to see depictions of bloody fetuses by pro-life protesters, perhaps they should reciprocate with large pictures of poopy baby bottoms!
Gumby
Veteran
Actually, George... that IS a problem. Young children don't need to see that, nor do they need to be involved in the pro-/anti-life debate at that level of detail!
George S.
How many is enough?
Yes, and then they'll ask you questions about it and you'll have to stutter about how you're for killing babies....! THAT'S the real problem most have with it.
Gumby
Veteran
1. There are better ways to teach respect for life.
2. I hope you don't mean me when you use the expression "you're". Please tell me that you meant that generically... cause you don't have a clue who you're really talking to.
Perhaps the gory pictures ought to be legislated as required viewing for people who have chosen to actually have an abortion.
2. I hope you don't mean me when you use the expression "you're". Please tell me that you meant that generically... cause you don't have a clue who you're really talking to.
Perhaps the gory pictures ought to be legislated as required viewing for people who have chosen to actually have an abortion.
George S.
How many is enough?
No, Gumby, I did not mean "you", sorry for not making that more clear. I also agree with your last few comments.
Best wishes,
G.
Best wishes,
G.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.