[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Or perhaps a better parallel instead of graphic images of porn would be graphic images of mutilated corpses from murders and war atrocities. My core argument remains the same.

[1L]

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.