Question Regarding Pro-Life Use of Graphic Images

Last week, I was leaving the office and on turning the corner, was assaulted by the large graphic posters of aborted fetuses about every 20 feet that went on for blocks on both sides of the street.

I'm just wondering how this is legal whereas other images of graphic violence/sex in public places (including broadcasts) are censored and/or regulated. I remember a similar instance where such photos were placed on giant billboards in front of the entrance to my university library on numerous ten-foot tall panels in the visible path of the children's entrance to day care. In both cases, my viewing of these horrific images was unavoidable. If I suffered the effects of illness or trauma from having these images forced upon me (I was shaken and sickened, but it could easily cause more damaging effects to others), could I successfully sue? Would it also be legal for pro-choice advocates to force images of a woman being raped on the public? Or the corpses of women and babies who died in childbirth? Somehow I doubt it. I guess I just don't get the subtle nuances as to what is protected by the First Amendment.

Not that I think this an effective strategy for either side of the discussion. Judging from my own reaction, I was only further repelled by these people and their cause rather than moved by any sense of sympathy, responsibility or guilt. I cant imagine they catch many flies with this particular form of vinegar.

---

Updated On: 7/31/13 at 03:14 PM

I would guess that the goal of putting the ads in front of a daycare would be an attempt to sway any of those people who might have kids of their own but still be pro-choice. By this point the real battle is not stopping women as they go in to the clinic but attempting to change the law so that the clinic does not even exist.

They're trying to shock and I agree it will backfire. Reminds me of the torture pictures during the war were put up in front of the army recruiting offices.All it did was get people angry and spit at them which I guess was point..

---

I agree, PalJoey.

---

I've never understood these types of protestors. If they are that passionate why don't they get at the front end of the cycle and hand out condoms instead?

""I would think visiting a day care center would be great birth control. What, with all of the screaming kids and all...""

truer words were never written!

---

I don't see them coming up with solutions for all those unwanted babies that they want born. Are they adopting them?

---

So, as long as you have a "political" issue, all imagery and photos are protected? Anything you want? That's what I'm wondering.

---

Aren't these images also kind of offensive and insensitive to women who have suffered miscarriages?

---

Not ONE reaction to my joke?!

---

Comedy based on truthiness

---

Updated On: 8/1/13 at 01:26 PM

Mister Matt- a person seeing the pictures could possibly sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress. They (or you) would have to prove that the posting of the pictures is outrageous (in a legal sense, that's much more than the common use of the word, and kind of means it is absolutely intolerable by society), and the pictures are a reckless disregard of the possibility of emotional distress. Since the very purpose of the pictures is shock, that second part may not be as hard. The third element is that a person seeing the picture suffer severe or extreme emotional distress, which is usually shown by some physical impact. And finally, there must be a link between the emotional distress and the images seen, which could not really be caused by another event.

All that said, it would be a very tough sell that a the organization posting the pictures negligently caused emotional distress. And in case you wonder why I said negligent infliction, it's because intentional infliction would require a plaintiff to prove the organization meant to cause that specific person emotional distress.