Is it better to have rights, or to be right?

Charge against anti-abortion truck driver dropped | ajc.com

Last week I had the chance to join the staff of the Henry County Pregnancy Resource Center for their weekly "Pastor Prayer Time." I shared a little about that experience here. After our visit I received an email copy of our prayer list, and another email from the HCPRC about a man who had been arrested for driving a truck depicting pictures of aborted fetuses. I placed a link at the bottom of my previous post that not only tells that story, but shows pictures of the truck. I was glad to see in today's news that those charges have been dropped. However, I have mixed feelings about the whole issue. As I see it, there are two separate issues involved. The first issue is the right of Americans to freely express their opposition to abortion, and to seek to persuade others to embrace that position. The second issue relates to the ability of Christians not only to defend the lives of the innocent, but to be able to effectively share the gospel in our culture.

Free Speech

Should an anti-abortion activist have the right, under the first amendment, to display pictures of aborted, fetuses, including bloody, dismembered limbs and headless torsos, on public streets? Freedom of speech is not absolute. The courts have held that communities may limit speech that is considered obscene by community standards. Unfortunately, the definition of obscenity seems to move along a very uncertain sliding scale. What is obscene in one city or state is often ruled not to be obscene in another city or state. And even in the same geographical areas what is obscene in one decade may not be considered obscene in the next decade. I can understand why the courts lean toward allowing rather than limiting speech when the obscenity of the material is open to debate.

I wonder if the purpose of the speech should not be given as much weight as the relative obscenity. Consider the reasons of the founding fathers for including freedom of expression in our Bill of Rights. It seems apparent that having gained their liberty from a monarchy, they wanted to be sure that the people would always have the freedom to hold their new government accountable for its action. Secondly, having gained their independence from a nation with a state church, they wanted to preserve the rights of the citizens of this new nation to worship as they see fit. Therefore the first amendment seems primarily intended to protect political and religious speech. As Christians we are appalled when pornographers and strip club owners hide behind the first amendment. I don't think any of us believe that the founding fathers intended the first amendment be used to protect the right of citizens to profit by promoting the objectification of women and the cheapening of God's great gift of human sexuality. Certainly this type of obscenity should not enjoy the protection of the first amendment, and citizens ought to have the freedom to move about the the community without being involuntarily exposed to such offensive material.

But can the same principle not be said to apply to Operations Rescue's moving billboards? Shouldn't citizens be able to drive down the street without being exposed against their will to such grotesque images? I am a pro-life Christian who finds abortion abhorrent, and yet I don't want to see these trucks in my neighborhoods. But the difference here is not just the level of obscenity, but the purpose of the speech. These images are being used not to profiteer, but in an effort to sway public opinion on an issue with both political and religious implications. With that in mind, I have to say that though I don't wish to see this truck in my neighborhood, I do think Operation Rescue and their driver deserve the protections of our first amendment. Gwinnet County was right to drop the charges against this driver. Now they need to repair the damages they did to this truck, and apologize to the driver.

Christian Witness

This type of speech should be protected. That doesn't make it smart. I know some argue that some who see these images may choose to carry a child to term rather than to have an abortion. I suppose that may be so. But I can't help but think we lose the right to be heard with much of the populace when we result to such grotesque means to get our message across. Certainly images like these have their place. It would be very appropriate to use them in counseling literature in a place like the Henry County Pregnancy Resource Center. When it comes to putting them on the side of a truck and driving around town, I can't help but think that such in-your-face offensive displays simply reinforce the public perception that Christians are a hateful, self-righteous, arrogant hoard. Not only do such displays keep us from being able to engage in meaningful dialogue about the sanctity of human life, but they also close the door for sharing the good news of the gospel. They bring up not the images of a people filled with the love of God seeking to save children, but militants like Eric Rudolf filled with hate seeking to bomb clinics.

Operation Rescue, I hope you will keep your vulgar truck out of my neighborhood. However, if I see it I won't be calling my local sheriff.