Line Between Free Speech and Violence

Spencer King
July 11, 2003

The line between free speech and violence

Are anti-abortion protesters abusing the right of free speech to threaten or even harm abortion clinic doctors and workers? Has the Supreme Court’s “high standard of protection for political protest” failed to protect the rights of abortion clinic doctors and workers? An article published on March 26, 1999 in Commonweal Magazine, a political magazine published in Manhattan by lay members of the Catholic Church, addresses this issue. Published around the time of the presidential primaries, this essay was read by a small number of predominantly catholic readers in the Manhattan area. Author Edward Mcglynn Gaffney Jr. uses a combination of logic and ethos in his article “Protesting abortion: free speech or no?” to persuade the reader that violent protests by anti-abortionists are the result of the Supreme Court’s high protection of protesters’ freedom of speech.
Gaffney begins his essay by arguing, “Since 1993 there have been seven murders and fourteen attempted murders of abortion-clinic personnel, as well as more than two hundred clinic bombings and arsons. In this atmosphere one can readily understand that those who work in abortion clinics feel physically endangered.” Gaffney sets up a logical cause-and-effect statement that will prove that anti-abortion protesters turn to violence. He states that the cause is all of the violence that has been happening at abortion clinics. The effect is that thousands of clinic workers now feel that their lives are threatened. Gaffney states that anti-abortion protesters are to blame for the violence. Workers are scared because they are worried that other violent acts could follow. Who wouldn’t feel that they were in danger if their workplace were the subject of repeated arson and bomb attempts? Most people would be upset by the fact that their workplace was hazardous because people stood outside threatening them. Gaffney presents his argument as a logical question that one should ask. “Where should the line be drawn between protesters’ free-speech rights and what the law calls ‘true threats’ or extortion?"
Gaffney uses ethos as a tool to explain to the reader that the Supreme Court is not doing all it can to protect abortion personnel against violent protests. Since the Commonweal is a political magazine Gaffney knows that his audience is interested in politics. A majority of them would only pay attention to facts that come from someone who knows and understands politics and the current issues. To help establish his credibility as someone who knows what he’s talking about, he uses many court cases as a basis for his argument. There can be no question as to whether or not the subject was thoroughly researched. He obviously knows what he is talking about. He cites the case of Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994) where the court rejected a motion that would disallow protesters to approach persons seeking services at an abortion clinic. Only when threatening language or violence was used was the protester doing anything wrong. Gaffney argues that the Supreme Court does very little to limit what protesters can do. He implies that they are afraid to set any limits because of our first amendment rights. The reaction from the public on limiting what protesters could do or say would be outrage. People would most likely accuse the Supreme Court of invading one of our oldest, most basic liberties. Gaffney shows the reader that the Supreme Court does allow protestors a very high standard of protection. He uses an example of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1977) where the court sided with NAACP members who apparently used physical intimidation as well as threatening language to boycott a hardware store and stop other African Americans from going to the store. His purpose for using this example is to imply that the Supreme Court usually sides with the protestors. If the reader accepts this, he must accept the fact that the Supreme Court sides with the anti-abortion protesters. His credibility is raised because he appears to not only have knowledge of the abortion issue; he understands the patterns that form through our history. By implying that the Supreme Court does not impede the use of force during protesting, Gaffney helps his point about protestors becoming violent. They will become violent because no one is stopping them. Gaffney uses a different form of ethos by detracting from the credibility of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is always viewed as a sound, just, and understanding branch of the government. Gaffney’s accusations that the Supreme Court overlooks physical violence in cases of political protest show the Court in contradiction. Gaffney would like us to question ourselves: How can the Supreme Court protect one group of persons and fail to protect another? If they allow anti-abortion protesters to become violent without punishment than they are doing just that. The Supreme Court’s credibility is damaged and Gaffney’s readers will start to question whether the Supreme Court should set limits on what can be done or said by anti-abortion protesters.
By using logic Gaffney shows that anti-abortion protesters can become violent. By using ethos and raising his credibility Gaffney is able to convince the reader that the Supreme Court lacks passing legislation regarding violent protesting. This causes protesters to go unchecked and become violent. Regardless of the readers stance on the issue of abortion he cannot ignore Gaffney’s points and examples. We cannot sacrifice the rights of one group of people to provide those same rights for another group. Perhaps the Supreme Court should take a look at the liberties it offers protestors and establish some definite lines between free speech and violent protesting.