Despite ruling, UH won't allow abortion photos

Fueling the controversy over free speech restrictions on campus, University of Houston officials say they will not follow a judge's order and allow an anti-abortion group to display large pictures of dead fetuses where it wants.

U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. ruled last week that UH must allow the student group Pro-Life Cougars to put up the controversial display this fall in the heavily trafficked Butler Plaza, near UH's Hoffman Hall and M.D. Anderson Library. The judge concluded that UH violated the group's First Amendment rights to free speech and 14th Amendment rights to equal protection last October by not permitting the display in the plaza.

UH spokesman Mike Cinelli said Werlein's order is moot because it only applies to a previous university policy on regulating speech. He said a new policy enacted Tuesday will allow UH to restrict the proposed display to one of four so-called "free speech zones" in less visible areas of campus.

"This whole issue is really a case about where free speech will occur as opposed to the ability to express free speech," Cinelli said.

Free speech zones were created in the 1960s to try to control potentially disruptive speech in the wake of massive student activism. Universities have sometimes been criticized for using such zones to banish potentially offensive speech to lightly trafficked areas.

While Werlein did not specifically address the new policy, Benjamin C. Bull, a Scottsdale, Ariz., attorney who represents Pro-Life Cougars, said Werlein's statements regarding First Amendment law are broad and "universal in application."

"The court has given the university a road map on how to enact a policy that passes constitutional muster, and they have burned it before our very eyes," Bull said.

Bull, who works for the conservative Christian nonprofit group Alliance Defense Fund, said the university is trying to circumvent the judge's order by citing the new policy.

Bull maintained the university is trying to stop the display from going up in Butler Plaza solely because of the content, which would be unconstitutional.

The previous UH policy listed the same four free speech zones as the new policy, and last fall UH offered Pro-Life Cougars the chance to erect the display in one of these areas.

Werlein said the old policy was unconstitutional because it gave UH dean of students William F. Munson "unfettered discretion" in determining what events could be at Butler Plaza.

The new policy will pass constitutional muster because it has specific guidelines on regulating the time, place and manner of free speech, Cinelli said. UH officials have denied the previous policy was unconstitutional.

Some experts say anti-abortion groups have been at the forefront of testing the constitutionality of free speech zones. The proposed UH exhibit, which is about 15 feet tall, travels around the country and is funded by the anti-abortion group Justice for All, based in Wichita, Kan.

The same exhibit was allowed on Butler Plaza in March 2001, leading to student protests and partly causing UH to form a committee that summer to re-evaluate its free speech policy, Cinelli said.

The exhibit also caused the University of Texas and Baylor University to re-examine their free speech policies after controversies erupted in those universities last year.

"The photos used by anti-abortion group are aggressive, and they're also aggressive in their demands for access as they go from campus to campus," said UT law professor Doug Laycock, who heads a UT committee drafting a new policy.

James Spencer, general counsel for Justice for All, said after touring Texas universities last year, the exhibit went to Colorado State University, the University of New Mexico and the University of California at Los Angeles. He said the exhibit has generated student protests and disagreements with administrators at many schools, but UH is the only university that has been sued over its restrictions.

Some students on campus during the summer session had mixed reactions to Werlein's ruling.

Brooke Skeen, a senior from Pasadena majoring in English literature and minoring in women's studies, said it was "ridiculous."

Michael Rodriguez, a senior majoring in anthropology, disagreed. "This is supposed to be a place of higher education that supports the sharing of ideas," Rodriguez said. "They can't say to someone `go to a corner and stay where nobody will see you.' "

Werlein said because Butler Plaza has historically been used as an area for student expression, it constitutes a "public forum." Because of this, the judge said, restrictions on the use of Butler Plaza must be narrowly tailored.

Since the proposed display for the fall of 2001 was rejected, Munson has not allowed any student speech at Butler Plaza, saying it could all be disruptive.

Werlein said the decision was made "rather astonishingly" because it led to the removal of a Christmas tree from the plaza and prevented UH cheerleaders from practicing there. Munson even testified he would not allow "the silent expression of a single student on the plaza holding a small sign proclaiming "The World is a Beautiful Place."

I saw a nature show on TV once in which wild dingoes had captured a pregnant female kangaroo. The dingoes tore open her belly, and then tore apart each of the little (but well-formed) kangaroo fetuses. The fetuses squirmed and tried to move away as the dingoes tore each one apart with their teeth, limb from limb. - - The vast majority of pro-abortion people want abortion rights because they want to have sex without facing the consequence that they might be bringing a new human life into being on this world. To tear their child apart piece by piece the way the dingoes did to the kangaroos is the ultimate act of selfishness. It's no wonder so many don't want to look at it. It's depraved and evil and cruel.

Munson even testified he would not allow "the silent expression of a single student on the plaza holding a small sign proclaiming "The World is a Beautiful Place."

Assuming he is telling the truth, at least he's is consistant.

Sorry, but I'm with the school on this one. If they can't stop a group from displaying graphic abortion photos on their own grounds, then they also won't be able to stop groups from displaying graphic photos of orgies, child sacrifice, mutilation, or anything else that is grotesque and offensive.

Its called decency and civility. If you want to be able to be able to restrict profanity, than it cuts both ways. I'm very pro-life, but the issue here goes beyond abortion. Of course the school would prefer that pro-life groups go away and be silent, but the tactics have forced this to become more about control over one's own property(the school's) and public civility.

BTW, sticking graphic photos in peoples faces without first giving them a choice is counterproductive. How is it any different from a liberal screaming cusswords at a family on a sidewalk or waving porn pictures in the faces of children? Should not a parent be able to control what their children are exposed to, don't we have the reasonable expectation of civility in public? If you disagree, then you can't complain about the polluting of the family hour on TV, or things like Nickelodeon running gay promotions disguised as 'discussions'. Can't have it both ways.

I always find it fascinating that pro-abortionists never want the fruits of their policies to be seen by the public. Gee, are they ashamed or something?

Is that why we are not allowed to post those pictures on FreeRepublic, because FreeRepublic is Pro-Abortion?

Sorry, but I'm with the school on this one. If they can't stop a group from displaying graphic abortion photos on their own grounds,

Dude, I absolutely, can not believe you said this. It is a PUBLIC university. They don't own it; you and I do -- or at least those of us who live in Texas.

then they also won't be able to stop groups from displaying graphic photos of orgies, child sacrifice, mutilation, or anything else that is grotesque and offensive.

To some extent they won't -- you are right. But there are what's called time place and manner restrictions. Pictures of orgies can be restricted for reasons that have nothing to do with content. Photos of a sexual nature with no political purpose can be restricted. Child sacrifice and mutilation are illegal and I would suspect that photos of such (unless they are fake) are likewise illegal. So restriction of these photos can be done on a non-discriminatory basis.

sticking graphic photos in peoples faces without first giving them a choice is counterproductive.

I agree with you, but the first amendment has nothing to do with good taste.

But if a city can impose a 'use' restriction(no sleeping on benches in public, no dumpster diving), then it seems that some forms of activity can be banned. Could revolve around the issue of expression, though. However we are still talking about institutional property. If the school can't restrict use(such as the appropriate place and form of protest), then how is a judge allowed to restrict expression in his court room? Seeing as how UH provided alternative venues, then it seems that they are not blocking free speech, but redirecting it to appropriate locations.

But if a city can impose a 'use' restriction(no sleeping on benches in public, no dumpster diving),

For one thing, you are stepping out of the range of free speech.

However we are still talking about institutional property.

It's still public property. Institutional or not has nothing to do with it. The question is whether the place or area is a public forum, or a limited public forum. Cougar high as a whole is a limited public forum, while there are areas on campus that are public fora. It's impossible to get away from that.

Seeing as how UH provided alternative venues, then it seems that they are not blocking free speech, but redirecting it to appropriate locations.

Which is legal, but a public university shouldn't use this ability in anything but a careful manner. At A&M this spring, they had some sort of idiocy called the Vagina chronicles or something stupid like that. They were allowed to display their message in A&M's public speech area. I didn't like it, but it appears that they are in good constitutional standing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.