How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are challenged – Salon

If youve made a habit of either watching Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight or following the anti-abortion groups that frequently appear on the program, then youve heard allegations that these organizations and the anti-choice misinformation they spread are being censored by any number of media platforms.

Most recently, Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, appeared on the June 26 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight and claimed that Twitter was censoring Live Actions ads. Beyond alleging that Twitter was biased against the anti-abortion group, Rose also conveniently mentioned that Live Action had a $40,000 fundraising goal to meet within the week. Mere hours after Roses appearance, Live Actions homepage carried alarge addecrying Twitters censorship and begging for donations to meet the fundraising deadline. By June 30, the organization had reached its fundraising goal and wasaskingsupporters to continue donating in order to guarantee it could continue working to expose the abortion industry.

Rose is merely the latest person in a long list of anti-abortion extremists to baselessly allege censorship as a tactic in order to raise support and rile up right-wing media allies. When viewed as part of a larger pattern of behavior, it becomes clear that for these anti-abortion groups, crying censorshipto any perceived slight functions as a strategy to gain attention and support for their anti-choice misinformation.

Live Action ads and Twitter

During her June 26appearanceon Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose claimed that Twitter was refusing to promote ads from either her or Live Actions Twitter accounts. Rose alleged that a Twitter bot had been telling them for months, that this is banned, we wont let you put this out. According to Rose, It took over a year for us to finally get from Twitter whats wrong with these tweets. and finally they said that any tweet that shows an ultrasound, that shows a prenatal life and affirms it, that exposes Planned Parenthood, violates the hate and sensitive policy. Carlson echoed Roses allegations and called Twitters policy an atrocity.

In a blog post, Live Actionpointedto Twitters advertising policies against inflammatory content andalleged that Twitter told them to delete tweets calling for the end of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, tweets of our undercover investigations into Planned Parenthood, and tweets including ultrasound images of fetuses. Live Action includedemailsfrom Twitter support staff in the blog post, in which a Twitter representative citedtweets mentioninginfanticideand anotherincluding abirth videoas examples of content that violatedthe platforms sensitive advertising content policy.

The hate and sensitive policy Rose cited is in actuality the platformsad policyon hate content, sensitive topics, and violence. In a statement to Carlson, the social media platformsaid, Twitter has clear, transparent rules that every advertiser is required to follow, and the political viewpoints of an organization do not impact how these rules are applied. Twitters hate content policy also covershate speech or advocacy; violence or threats of violence against people or animals; glorification of self-harm or related content; organizations associated with promoting hate; and offensive, vulgar, abusive or obscene content.

Despite this, Live Actionhas continued to assert that Twitter is playing politics,citinga few tweets by Planned Parenthood to demonstrate the perceived imbalance. These Planned Parenthood tweets mention extremists and talk about Trump defunding the non-profit but without pointing an accusatory finger at a specific group. Many of Live Actions tweets which Twitter did not accept as ads target Planned Parenthood specifically.

Letsnot forgot Live Action is still free to tweet and keep such content on its Twitter account, as Roseclarifiedduring an interview onEWTN News Nightly. The content merely does not meet clear and non-ideological standards for promotion or sponsorship, as dictated by Twitters easily locatedadvertising policies.

Given these facts, it appears that Roses appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and claims of censorship werepart of a fundraising strategy for Live Action. As RosetoldCarlson, Were actually doing a campaign right now to get people to fund Live Action and to get out the information that Twitter is trying to block using other platforms using Facebook, using YouTube, using the blogosphere, obviously coming on here and talking with you.

After Roses June 26 appearance, Live Action sent afundraisingemailabout the segment, claiming that Live Action is being suppressed and asking supporters to help us strengthen our efforts against the abortion industry. Live Actions censorship allegations also animated other right-wing media outlets.The Washington Timespromoteditsfundraising appeal, stating, Looking to take their business elsewhere, Live Action started a campaign to raise money to inundate other social media platforms with the pro-life message. On June 29, Christian Broadcasting Network published an article on Live Actions claims about Twitters ad policy, at the end of which itstatedthat Live Action has launched a campaign to compensate for their losses due to Twitters censoring, and directed readers to Live Actions fundraising page.RoseandLive ActionalsopushedthenarrativeonTwitter, using the hashtag #DontDeleteMe despite all content remainingpubliclyavailable on the platform.

Center for Medical Progress videos

In May 2017, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress (CMP)circulateddeceptive video footage that had been barred from release by a federal judge. The videoquickly spreadthrough social media accounts of anti-abortion leaders and groups before Judge William Orrick ordered all copies of the video be taken down as there was aheightened concernfor the safety of abortion providers identified in the footage.

As copiesof the video were removed following Orricks order, anti-choice activists claimedcensorship had occurred and pointed a finger at almost every social media platform as potential culprits. During a May 31appearanceon Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose accused both YouTube and Twitter of participating in the chilling effect right now on journalism that is the opposing viewpoint on abortion by complying with the court order to remove the video. Live Action alsoclaimedthat YouTube had caved to the abortion industrys censorship pressure while LifeSiteNewsarguedthat video hosting websites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Vimeo were on a witch hunt against the latest undercover Planned Parenthood video, deleting instances of it wherever they find it.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony ListaccusedYouTube of partnering with Planned Parenthood to cover up the truth that #PPSellsBabyParts a common social media hashtag among staunch anti-choice activists. Liz Wheeler of right-wing news outlet One America News Network (OANN) took personal offense when YouTube removed a clip of her show, Tipping Point, in which she played some of the barred footage. In a follow-up clip, amusinglyavailable on OANNs YouTube channel, Wheeler said YouTube was trying to silence me and asked, What are liberals so afraid people will see that theyll censor me to ensure nobody sees [footage from the barred video].

Although anti-choice groups and right-wing media outlets alike cried censorshipwhen various platforms removed the video, the fact remains that itwas legally barred from release giving these platforms little choice even if they agreed with CMPs highlydiscreditedclaims. Undeterred, these groups and outlets evenextendedtheir criticisms to attack Orrick andattemptedto have him removed from CMPs case an effort that another federal judge ultimatelydismissedas lacking merit.Despite claiming the video was being censored, anti-choice groups still (somehow!)continuedto re-post andspreadthe video across the internet after Orricks order.

Operation Rescues Google ranking

The extremistanti-choice groupOperation Rescueclaimedthat Google was engaged in censorship after its page views decreased for when internet users searched forabortions in US orabortion statistics. The group alleged that Googles search engine has manipulated search parameters to dramatically reduce exposure to Operation Rescues webpages containing misleading abortion statistics.

In April, Googleannounceda policy change regarding how sites containing misleading or false information would be ranked. If Google is censoring anti-abortion pages as Operation Rescue argued it isnot doing a great job with it. Although the page rankings fluctuate,search results for abortions in US and abortion statistic still yield anti-choice sites, includingFox News, National Right to Life Committee, abortion73, and American Life League.

By alleging it wasbeing censored, Operation Rescue effectively sounded the alarm for other anti-abortion groups to use their own rankings on Googles search results to claim discrimination and promote their content. Within a day of OperationRescues initial post, similar stories were running onLifeNewsand the right-wing outletOneNewsNow. Operation Rescue also sent a fundraisingemailasking for support to launch a massive campaign to ensure our critical abortion research and pro-life content is available, and no longer pushed down by the pro-abortion radicals at Google.

March for Life coverage

Every January, anti-abortion groups andmediaoutletsallegethatmainstreammedia are censoring their protest, called the March for Life, againsttheRoe v. Wadedecision. The supposed lack of coverage has galled anti-abortion groups to such an extent that they started anumbrella groupcalled Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues, which primarily focuses on the March for Life Media Censorship. Many members of the group havecomplainedabout the media blackout of the March for Life on major media platforms. Rep. Alex Mooney R-W.Va., who is one of the two politicians in the Alliance, stated, The liberal medias consistent censorship of the annual March for Life is nothing short of shameful.

However, as some right-wing media outlets have themselves suggested, describing coverage of the March for Life as suffering from consistent censorship is inaccurate.After the most recent March for Life, the extreme right-wing outlet Church Militantpraisedthe media because the 2017 March for Life is receiving more media coverage than ever. Church Militant pointed out thatC-SPANandCNNlivestreamed the march, whileNPRfeatured stories from attendees. In addition,The New York Times,The Washington Post, andABC Newsall ran stories about the march.

The March for Life also benefited from the attention garnered by the Womens March in January 2017. Several anti-abortion groups and individuals tried toco-optthe message of the Womens March to push a so-called feminist anti-choice message. The Womens March ultimatelyadopteda pro-choice message, but the anti-abortion groups stillgainedsubstantialmediacoveragefrombeingsupposedlybannedfrom being sponsors ofthe Womens March.

Anti-abortion messages at schools

In March,anti-choicegroupsandmediaoutletsbegan crying censorship when anti-abortion chalk messages scrawled by a chapter of Students for Life of America (SFLA) were scrubbed from sidewalks at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. Thehate groupAlliance Defending Freedom (ADF) came to SFLAs defensedeclaring, University officials cant chalk up their censorship to following orders to enforce an unconstitutional campus policy on sidewalk chalking. SFLA President Kristan Hawkinsagreed, saying, Too frequently we see that public colleges and universities feel they can engage in censorship of a student group just because officials dont agree with the viewpoint of those students.

In reality, the messages had beenremovedovernight during a regular cleaning process, and had nothing to do with the content of the chalking.

Hawkins also usedTucker Carlson Tonights right-wing platform toraiseanother issue of censorship in schools. During the June 2 appearance on the show, Hawkins supported a high school student whoclaimedher school had denied her permission to form a SFLA chapterbecause it was too controversial. According to school officials, the studentssimplydidnt followthe requirements for club formation and would be approved once they did.

Buffer zones

In 2014, ADF successfully arguedMcCullen v. Coakleybefore the Supreme Court,striking downa Massachusetts buffer zone law that banned anti-choice protestors inside a 35-feet parameter around abortion clinics. ADFclaimedthat this buffer zone in which anti-abortion extremists were not allowed to protest created a censorship zone where the First Amendment doesnt apply. Equating buffer zones with censorship has been a common tactic of anti-choice groups when challenging laws that mandate them. For example, ADF alsousedthe censorship zone argument when arguing against a Pittsburghordinance. Similarly, the anti-abortion group Created EqualclaimedOhios 15-feet buffer zone constituted a censorship zone that infringed on its right to protest outside abortion clinics.

Despite censorshipclaims from anti-abortion groups, buffer zones are essential for abortion access and to deter threats of violence against patients, providers, and clinics. The Massachusetts ordinance that was struck down inMcCullen v. Coakleywasoriginally introducedbecause of a 1994 shooting at a Brookline, MA clinic that killed two people. While anti-abortion protesters complain about the ability to spout their hateful rhetoric,violenceat abortion clinics has not only continued but increased in recent years; in 2015, ashootingat a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic killed three people and injured nine more. Data from the National Abortion Federation (NAF)showsthat protests outside abortion clinics rose in 2016 to the highest level since NAF began tracking them in 1977. There wasalsoan increase in a wide range of intimidation tactics meant to disrupt the provision of health care at facilities, including vandalism, picketing, obstruction, invasion, trespassing, burglary, stalking, assault and battery, and bomb threats.

As recent cases in Kentucky and Missouri have shown, someanti-choicegroupsintentionally harass abortion providers or engage in civil disobedience outside clinics. When these groups face backlash or legal pushback, they invokecensorshipas a tactic in order to continue their campaigns of harassment.

Crying censorship: An anti-choice tactic

These examples are wide-ranging, reaching from social media platforms, to news coverage, to sidewalk access, but the common thread and indeed, the underlying tactic at play is anti-abortion groups labeling a perceived injustice against them as censorship.These groups have much to gain and very little to lose by employing this tactic. By claiming theyve been unjustly censored, anti-abortion groups not only elevate their lies and misinformation, they are also able to incite followers and raise funds by claiming they are being persecuted.

Crying censorship is a win-win tactic for anti-abortion extremists. Meanwhile, clinic intimidation andviolencecontinues to rise asright-wing mediaagitate their increasingly polarized base to support anti-abortion causes,and an increasing number oflawsare being implemented to limit abortion rights. Anti-choice organizations also have thebenefitof PresidentDonald Trumpsadministrationbeing filled withanti-choiceextremistsalreadyon arampageagainstabortionandcontraception access.

But please, thoughyou have an overtlyanti-choice administration that relies on a direct pipeline of information from anti-abortion extremists, continue to feign outrage about being unable to place ads on Twitter.

Read more:
How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are challenged - Salon