« The Politics of Rape - rant warning | Main | Yikes!! »

April 14, 2006

Abortion - Free speech for me, not for thee

So, when a college campus Pro-choice group erects a display to protest the abortion ban legislation in South Dakota with the permission of the college administration, what should happen to a pro-life professor who encourages her like-minded students to destroy the display? What if she defended the actions by saying equating abortion to the Holocaust and saying:

[destroying the display] was similar to citizens taking down Nazi displays on Fountain Square, she said.

"Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged," Jacobsen said.

Pretty outregeous, no matter HOW you feel about the abortion debate.


Hold that. Flip the circumstance of the scenario above and you have what really happened

A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.

NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.

Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU's literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.

"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said.

A college professor who believes her feelings trumps the rights of others does not belong on any American college campus. Some maddrassa in dar ul Islam, maybe, but not in America.

hattip to Michelle Malkin - and I'd add that Michelle and others condemned the destruction of crosses that Mommy Sheehan's ilk had erected when she was posturing in Crawford.


Posted by Darleen at April 14, 2006 06:27 AM


Tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at April 14, 2006 10:21 AM

- Of course. Whenever the left tramples on the 1st amendment rights of others, its always jump to the "boys will be boys" meme. Nothing to see here. Just move along. But let a Conservative bring the American flag to school and they get a suspension or worse, because - well you know, thats just very very insulting to people of no faith whatsoever.

- Bullshit Goss, and you know it. Just another day in Liberal "double standard land".

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 14, 2006 10:58 AM

A) Nice intro there, Darleen.
B) It is outrageous. As much as I think that making a "cemetery" of crosses for aborted fetuses is, to put it politely, "over the top", your First Amendment rights do not trump other people's speech. They're equal.

The fact that the professor somehow managed to use the words "First Amendment Right" and "Destroy" in the same sentence, tells you how much free time that professor needs to spend reading the Bill of Rights again. And again, and again and again.

The display of holier-than-thou posturing (in this case Anti-abortion) offends you? Go get permission for a counter-display.

Posted by: W. Ian Blanton at April 14, 2006 10:59 AM

- And BTW. Ms Jacobsen needs a remedial course in Constitutional/State law. The 1st amendment does NOT give anyone the right to destroy property.

That, as a matter of fact, is a felony in all 51 states. So much for the hypocrisy of the Liberal idiot brigade. She should be severely reprimanded, if not fired outright, but at the very least, along with her "students", apologize publicly and replace the displays herself. If she refuses she should be dismissed. That would be poetic justice if there ever was any in these stupid secularist attacks by the closet Marxist cockroaches amongst us.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 14, 2006 11:16 AM

Well, Big Bang, maybe much ado about nothing. How's that sound?

Or maybe sound and fury signifiying nothing?

That better?

I got all kinds of Shakespeare for ya.....

My advice: Lighten up.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at April 15, 2006 08:08 AM

- Sure Goss. Whatever you say. Lets give the Left a pass no matter what they do. They're all losers anyway, so why worry about it. I can live with that.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 15, 2006 10:28 AM

I say free speech to all, even those attending Bush events that wear T-shirts offensive to the president. But Bush thinks they should be removed, even though they are paying his salary in part. And, yes he removes them.

What about those protesting and are offensive to the right wing? They are designated to an area that is far from the cameras. They also have to apply for a permit to express themselves on public streets. Then, when they still have followed the law to the letter, the police start shooting at them, with the non-lethal forces, and by way of creating a human wall, the police shove them away.

Then, there is the case of those that are allowed to protest, but no sticks to hold up their signs were allowed.

Often times, the protests are happening in front of the offices of the huge multi-national corporations that have shown zero scruples or regard for humanity, and coincidentally tend to be profitting off the war, and own large stock in the media. Money can buy anything it seems now.

Bypassing laws is one of the advantages of being wealthy in the age of Bush. Sorry to have to tell you righties that. He really is a corrupt president. Government and corporate power are one in the same. FOX or the many right-wing owned radio stations won't be telling you that though. They are of the war-profiteering sponsors of FOX and the like. Speech that gets heard requires big money. The top tiny percentage of the world's population who owns 80% of the world's wealth are the ones deciding that. They are the ones that want Bush policies to be in place. He is on there side. If you do a little research you will see that I am right about that. Bush himself, and Cheney are also of that big, big money crowd.

Welcome to the Incorporated States of America.

There is a fascinating documentary movie called "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" you can watch online if you easily google it up that explains what I am trying to say.

Posted by: blubonnet at April 16, 2006 10:09 PM

Not going to spend a lot of time on this, but really quickly...

"I say free speech to all, even those attending Bush events that wear T-shirts offensive to the president. But Bush thinks they should be removed[...] [a]nd, yes he removes them."

Actually, there is a long standing rule that nobody is allowed to to display slogans in that forum. I can only assume you're referring to Cindy Sheehan showing up for Bush's speech wearing an anti-Bush tee-shirt? You're conveniently forgetting the conservative (politician's wife I think?) who was also asked to cover up a slogan sign that was pro-Bush. Of course you might not have heard about that, since our completely balanced news media somehow neglected to report that part as widely.

As for protesters being held back by rules, need I really bring up the "free speech" cages at the 2004 Democratic National Convention?

(I'm also amused by your attempt to paint Fox News as the entirety of television news, somehow forgetting CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. & so forth, as well as you attempt to convince us that there are no rich liberals influencing the media *cough*georgesoros*cough*)

Posted by: Strider at April 17, 2006 09:53 AM

I am referring also to the events of which Bush went on his national jaunt countrywide attempting to spread his social security deform....oops...I mean reform. Bumper stickers were checked out among the attendees. There have been other events besides.

Well, it was the big money that put Bush into office. Yes, we have a few wealthy donors on the left as well, thank God.

Since the Reagan era, then again Clinton was also negligent in that there were rules lifted on media consolidation. So, now just a handful of individuals own the vast majority of the media, and a great many of them are large stock holders in the war effort. It is no wonder that the worst we ever see on any of the MSM is the car bombings by insurgents. The larger percentage of Iraqi deaths are from the bombings we carry out. Of the many insurgents, most are just Iraqis that are fed up with the family and friends being blown up by our bombs. You have to turn to non-corporate, donation only, alternative media to find these things out. An excellent one is DEMOCRACY NOW. They will tell you things that those networks who are invested in the MIC (military industrial complex will not) If you would prefer to be pro-war for fear of appearing less than Republican conservative, then you could choose the blinders the MSM provides you with. It is simpler. If you really want to start seeing things that are not in just the red-white and blue reality scheme, your capacity for a wider range of perspective is present, a good start is:
http://www.democracynow.org/ Another one is:
http://www.thousandreasons.org/ That is a start.

Posted by: blubonnet at April 17, 2006 12:55 PM

Oh, and another thing, it is known that in order to discredit the protesters, at least in the past, and probably now as well, the pro-war folks have been known to infiltrate the protesters and then start obnoxious behavior, requiring riot police and causing a complete fiasco, then the message attempted to be conveyed by the peaceful protesters with peace being the message, appear to be wild-eyed druggies and misfits. Never mind that there are many veterans of the war, many grandmothers, many from all over the social spectrum, made to look like crazies and bums. Also, those that have lost jobs due to the multi-national corporations outsourcing, despite their education, are considered bums because they don't have a job.

Money and power can control perception of the public.

Posted by: blubonnet at April 17, 2006 01:09 PM

"social security deform" ... Yes blueballs... I can see how the self-loathing left would be scared to death of letting people WHO ACTUALLY WORK FOR THE FUCKING MONEY keep a little more of it for their old age. Real shame they'd remove a bit more of their earnings from your favorite welfare givaway slush fund, SS, where you Marxist assholes couldn't get your greedy hands on it for "redistribution". Real shame.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 17, 2006 03:17 PM

Before the Social Security program came into existence, the elderly were found dead in their homes and had to be taken off to be cremated or whatever. It was the norm.

So, should we trust the economy to hold up for everyone, so that we all would either be able to save, or invest in the stock market? I guess if you have sufficient money to begin with, you could do those things.

So, the first paragraph, above, is that the scenario you are okay with? Just let them die. If you aren't doing well enough financially, just die?

I like to think of our country as being a United States, where we are of high ideals such as loving one another, caring for all, not just the fat cats. UNITED, in spirit.

So, only the folks that have been fortunate enough to be afloat financially ONLY deserve to live. THAT is a real shame.

Posted by: blubonnet at April 17, 2006 09:15 PM

the elderly were found dead in their homes and had to be taken off to be cremated or whatever. It was the norm.

What.The.Fuck are you babbling about?

Oh. You've been to PUBLIC skool and tool "Social STudies" not history.

That explains it.

That bit was the last straw in your tinfoil hat ramblings.

Start backing up your allegations with fact, bonnie.

Posted by: Darleen at April 17, 2006 09:43 PM

- Darleen, the asshats can always dream up some Utopian none-example to support their idiotic ideas. When you never have to deal with that ugly dirty real world. When you get every word you parrot from your Marxist Poly-Sci professor. When you've decided to try to "skate" through life, avoiding any form of personal responsibility like the plague, and for all of this, the "end justifies ANY lie or means", then the rest is a piece of cake. I seldom even bother responding to Liberal morons anymore. They don't debate, they just screech and run, covering their eyes and ears and singing lalalalalalalala.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 18, 2006 04:14 PM

I heard it on the Thom Hartmann show. I believe the thing about the government having to have a team of people to go around and gather the bodies of the deceased elderly periodically, he was referring to Britain. I looked for the transcript and I couldn't find it. So, I looked a little further to confirm the statement, and I found a government site, saying that before, the SS program came into existence in 1935, that over half of the elderly population were unable to support themselves. Do some research if you doubt me. I guess they deserve to perish if they didn't do as well as you all who won't have to rely on SS. (?) I think maybe you are just buying into the well paid pundits, and you really are more decent than that, possibly haven't filtered it through your conscience as yet.

Posted by: blubonnet at April 18, 2006 10:44 PM

Nice backpeddle, bonnie... You make the assertion that before the USA program of SocSec it "was the norm" that the elderly were "found dead" in their houses.

I do know the history of SocSec and I also KNOW that FDR proposed it as a retirement SUPPLIMENT and that program was to be SELF-Supporting and NOT a government welfare program.

Go back and do some real reading before accusing ME of being uninformed.


Posted by: Darleen at April 19, 2006 12:32 PM

I did not accuse you of being uninformed. You accused me of talking out my behind. I''m not negating what you have just now brought to the conversation. I didn't doubt you had some knowledge about the S.S.program.

If you ever listen to Thom Hartmann, you'll see that he is an expert on the constitution and Jefferson, and Madison, and he is magnificently entertaining. You should try listening to him, and then if you doubt him, give the ol' search engines a serious perusing and try to discredit him.

Posted by: blubonnet at April 19, 2006 09:14 PM