Ben Johnson

Property destruction: the new ‘free speech’?

Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson

April 27, 2012 ( - Pro-life advocates, pro-family organizations, and traditional Christians do not expect to get a fair shake in the media, but the dogged, seasoned journalists of the prestige publications have overlooked a disturbing new trend: an increasing number of left-wing activists claim that destroying or defacing other people’s property is part of their First Amendment “free speech” rights.

At, I have reported on the desecration of a pro-life display at Western Kentucky University. After a campus pro-life group got university permission to set up 3,700 crosses to represent the number of children aborted every day, a student named Elaina Smith placed condoms over each one. When a pro-life student confronted her, Smith complained, “I think it’s kinda weird that you’re allowed to express yourself, and I’m not.” Her art instructor, Kristina Arnold, gave her permission to deface the crosses as an “art project,” defended her actions, and may give her college credit for her act of vandalism.

Earlier this month at Northern Kentucky University, pro-life students hung up baby clothes and marked every fourth one with an “X” – symbolizing that one of every four babies is aborted – only to have their work destroyed. One of the left-wing students who dismantled it, Kyle Pickett, told the Kentucky Post, “Tearing it down was expressing our right to free speech.”

The actions follow another incident at NKU in 2006, when women’s studies professor Sally Jacobsen was fired after she incited her students to tear down a pro-life display of crosses. In an Orwellian turn-of-phrase she admitted, “I did…invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to.” Her behavior was doubly acceptable, Jacobsen claimed, because her feelings were hurt. “Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it,” she whined. “Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged.”

Click ‘like’ if you are PRO-LIFE!

What Jacobsen, et. al, describe is not the exercise but the extinguishing of free speech. The notion that if someone objects to a message, he may prevent others from expressing it is formally known as a Heckler’s Veto and is a violation of the First Amendment.

And of course, vandalism is not “speech” at all. Destroying other people’s property is not a missive; it’s a misdemeanor. It is also thuggish, imperious, and fascistic.

One can hardly be surprised when such notions of entitlement to the use of force bleed over into, well, the use of force. On Tuesday, a group calling itself the “Angry Queers” threw rocks through 100-year-old stained glass windows at Mars Hill Church in Portland. Its crime? The pastor of another church, with which it happens to be affiliated, said homosexuality is a sin. The local pastor, Tim Smith, agrees but has reached out to the local homosexual community to find common ground.

The possibility of human harmony and reconciliation was more than the liberal activists could bear.

In the wee hours, masked protesters threw baseball-sized rocks through nine church windows, causing thousands of dollars in property damage. “We hope this small act of vengeance will strike some fear into the hearts of all of Mars Hill’s pastors,” they wrote in an e-mail to a Portland TV station. Although there are apparently two versions of their statement, both included the line, “The only dialog we need with scum like Mars Hill is hammers through their windows.”

No media source reported the homosexual activists’ intent to terrorize their political opponents, nor that they committed themselves to violence in perpetuity. In effect, Big Journalism’s gatekeepers collaborated with the extremists to make them look more mainstream.

Can one believe for a moment if a pro-life organization – “The Fetus Fanatics,” let’s say – had thrown bricks through an abortion mill’s windows, dropped the f-bomb on any Christian who talked to the other side, then incited further violence, the media would be so docile?

Reporters in the liberal media have detected 50 of the last zero acts of “pro-life terrorism,” and zero of the last four anti-Christian hate crimes. After a certain critical mass, one has to assume the oversight is intentional. 

As these rage- and bigotry-fueled acts go unreported, and unpunished, one has to wonder: What will their perpetrators do next?

It’s All Been Done Before

The other side believes it has the inalienable right to silence speech of which it disapproves and to destroy property used in the commission of thoughtcrime. What is the next step – breaking up pro-life meetings like the brown-shirts of old, so the other side cannot express itself in the first place?

Sadly, that has already been done. Extremists have been invading and shutting down Right to Life meetings all year. Occupy Wall Street interrupted the March for Life Youth Rally in Washington, D.C., and threw condoms at Catholic school girls at a pro-life event at the Rhode Island statehouse. The campaign of intimidation is well underway.

If we are already to that point, what will come next? The right to batter, maim, or kill someone whose speech might offend you? As remote as it seems, recent history teaches us the rationale for war creeps inexorably from defense toward preemption. If social mores allow you to attack someone after an offense, why wait until it is inflicted?

That, too, is already a reality.

The right to preemptively kill another person, not only for inflicting harm but who may potentially inconvenience you in any way, is already legal. It’s called abortion.

The self-centered disdain for others is the logic that ties the action and its advocacy into one seamless, violent continuum.

As this month’s entitled acts of desecration prove, their disrespect for others and pursuit of autonomy at any price does not end at birth.

This article originally appeared on and is reprinted with permission.

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley /
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook