The debate on graphic abortion pictures resurfaced in my house this morning in a most unexpected way. My local paper has decided to publish some of the least offensive pictures released during Col. Russell Williams’ sentencing hearing. The sight of a grown man in girls’ underwear is not my idea of a wake-up call at 5 am. But as the Ottawa Citizen explained: “…we believe it is vital that the true nature of his crimes be revealed and that, by (publishing the pictures), the Citizen is contributing to an understanding of the proceedings against him and his sentencing.”
As an argument for publishing, it is uncomfortably similar to the rationale supporting the use of graphic abortion images, don’t you think? So can I both support graphic abortion images while denouncing the publication of explicit pictures of a sick man? I dread looking at pictures of aborted fetuses as much as I dread looking at Williams’ pictures. In fact, when I go to work, I make a point of looking the other way when I walk by the abortion display on Parliament Hill. Yet I support the use of graphic abortion pictures because the story needs to be told. And the story is not told by our sex educators, our schools or our medical system.
Does a story of sexual perversion need telling in all its gory details? I am asking because I am not sure what purpose is served by publishing the pictures. I read that Russell Williams was a grown man who liked to wear girls’ underwear. Then I saw Russell Williams in girls’ underwear. What changed? I honestly fail to see how seeing the pictures after reading the article has enlightened me. Do I better understand the proceedings and the sentencing? Two women are dead, several more traumatized. Whatever his sentence is, I can promise that I will find it inadequate.
I didn’t need a picture.
by 
“In fact, when I go to work, I make a point of looking the other way when I walk by the abortion display on Parliament Hill. Yet I support the use of graphic abortion pictures because the story needs to be told.”
But, if people are looking the other way, is the story really being told?
In the meantime, people who look the other way are thinking: There are the obnoxious anti-choicers trying to scare me into not having an abortion. They are steeling their consciences against the truth, because of the inflammatory way that a sound argument (fetuses are tiny humans; it’s wrong to kill humans; abortion is wrong) is being presented.
The difference between knowing details of criminal perversion, and knowing details of abortion, is that one is sponsored by the government and taught in our schools as acceptable. (That would be abortion.) For example,since homosexual behaviour is accepted by the gov’t and taught in schools, the details are also being taught. Its consistent.
If we don’t want to show abortion to people/kids, we shouldnt be teaching it or paying for it.
I think the issue is: can publishing these photos be justified under the rubric of “free expression”? In both cases, I believe it can. Our personal preferences should never come into the discussion about legally protected speech. And I can say that, having no need for or interest in the details of Williams’ crimes, I have ignored newspaper stories and muted the TV news. I would not, however, demand that newspapers and news shows not publicize any of it, since it can easily be argued that the information meets the standard of “in the public interest”. Same goes for graphic photos of aborted fetuses (and embryos.)
Let’s be honest. The only reason the media published those photos was to sell newspapers and draw viewers. There was no “public right know.” I already “knew” from news reports that he put on women’s underwear. I did not need to see it. Yes, the media had the right to publish the photos, but was it the right thing to do?
I’m not sure if the previous comment was directed at me, but I’d like to respond to the use of the phrase “the public’s right to know.” This is a different legal concept from “in the public interest”, and is used to combat censorship that is designed to hide information for reasons of “national security” or “good order.”
“In the public interest” is the test used by judges to determine if a form of public expression which, for example, offends against decency or “good taste” serves a purpose beyond feeding prurience. The pictures published of Williams may offend sensibilities, but they also serve the useful purpose of reminding people: that those who appear perfectly normal may be far from it; that your queasy or nervous response to being alone with someone in power should not be ignored; that what you may enjoy in movies and computer games looks less attractive in real life.
Publication of the pictures also serves the useful purpose of not letting Williams off the hook for his depraved and violent behaviour by pleading guilty and avoiding humilitation in a public trial.