University of Alabama Student Group Claims School Censored Anti-Abortion Display


#1

In an occurrence that came out in the national news in the U.S., a display opposing abortion was quietly removed at the University of Alabama because, according school officials, some people found it offensive. The sponsoring student group protests that its First Amendment rights are being violated. Though the display had been approved, a staff member cited the policy that such displays can’t be offensive to explain why it was removed. But as it turned out, there is no such policy. Criticism has also arisen over the fact that in the same location there are depictions of full-frontal male nudity and ads for a performance of “Blood Wedding.”
see www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20140213/news/140219851


#2

I have a feeling it was one of those anti-abortion displays that depicts the dead fetus in the most graphic, vile way possible. If that’s the case, the school has every right to censor the group.


#3

Funny how you get that feeling while having absolutely no idea about what the group was displaying.

If they can put full frontal nudity up, then they can deal with the images of murdered children. (assuming that’s what they were displaying)


#4

I agree. But they ought to have censored the male nudity as well. (As for Blood Wedding, that’s a Spanish play written in 1932, and probably far less lurid than it sounds. My mother had to teach it once, and didn’t think much of it, though. :p)

(Also, I’m a little sensitive on the above topic, for reasons of my own, so could we avoid any graphic details?)


#5

From another article.

The university administration removed Bama Students for Life’s pro-life display without notifying the group because they say that some students found the display “offensive.” The display included facts about abortion, the photos of women who have died from abortion in recent years, and images of aborted babies.

There is a small picture of their display in the above article. I wouldn’t agree that abortion is depicted in the "most graphic, vile way possible. But I guess that is a matter of opinion.


#6

I’ve now seen it, and what I mean is that I just assumed it was one of those pictures of completely butchered fetuses that have absolutely no place in public.

The display itself is rather harmless. Maybe the school went a bit too far.


#7

The display seems quite appropriate from what I could see in that article.

This is just another example of post-modernist intolerance. :stuck_out_tongue:


#8

So much for free speech. Apparently what is really important is that nobody ever gets their feelings hurt.


#9

Apparently the staff at the university have a twisted view on what is considered offensive. They give a pass on a poster featuring full frontal nudity because it is a “work of art”, but censor an abortion poster because it is graphic and gory, or mainly because they (the university staff) don’t want another worldview to be imposed on their own worldview.

Also, the young woman responsible for the poster is interviewed hear:

youtube.com/watch?v=nETMXfAKpDA&list=UUX17igkZ9JhU64JoTBVSWeQ&feature=c4-overview


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.