Media for social change

"People are always preaching freedom of speech...except when it applies to a "socially unaccepted" concept such as Pro-Life. If we can allow Pro-Choicers to voice their opinion, why can't Pro-lifers?? It's pure prejudism."

Yes and the stupid thing about their position is that legal protections for freedom of speech exist not for speech that everyone agrees with or that is in-offensive, but for speech which is unpopular and offensive since such reasons have been used in the past to censor people's speech.

The thing with the subject of abortion here is that the pro-abortion people try as they might are having a hard time convincing people that anti-abortion activists are anti-women since many pro-life clubs are either headed by or majority staffed by women.  The other problem for the pro-abortionists is that they are advocating in support for the legalization of a procedure which they and most people don't want to talk about.  This then begs the question, that if abortion is such a good thing and worthy of legal protection  why not proclaim its virtues to the hill tops? 

The only reason why universities are getting away with censoring pro-life clubs is because the universities live in this legal grey zone which declares that despite the fact that most of these institutes are public and get most of their funding from the taxpayer, they have been declared private and in control of their own spaces and hence laws like the Charter don't apply as much to them.  This gets me wondering if the Courts which have made such decisions in the past would rule the same way if for instance one such school decided not to admit blacks like George Wallace tried to do in Alabama 45 years ago?  Somehow I doubt very much that said Courts would be declaring these institutions to be private. Perhaps defending civil liberties insn't such a priority when the victims are not exactly from the traditional groups of disenfranchised.

People are always preaching freedom of speech...except when it applies to a "socially unaccepted" concept such as Pro-Life. If we can allow Pro-Choicers to voice their opinion, why can't Pro-lifers?? It's pure prejudism.