There are ways for organizations to advocate for their beliefs without forcing them onto an unwilling audience. Hosting a forum, inviting discussion and creating space for dialogue are all methods that allow individuals to provide enthusiastic consent and opt into an open conversation. However, it is another thing entirely to occupy the center of campus, using amplified sound and graphic imagery to capture the attention of passing students who never agreed to participate in the first place.
At the University of California, Riverside (UCR), Students for Life in America (SFLA), a national pro-life advocacy organization, recently hosted an event at the Highlander Union Building (HUB). The event, according to their western regional manager, Mary Logan, is to educate students and encourage dialogue around abortion from a pro-life perspective.
Logan explains that many college students only see one viewpoint on abortion, whether it be from social media, their peers or even their classes and that “maybe they’ve never talked to a pro-lifer before.” She expressed that it’s important for SFLA to “make it normal, to balance it out on campus and to actually have real conversations.”
While the organization framed its presence as an opportunity for open conversation, the methods utilized — highly visible displays and amplified sound — complicate the line between invitation and coercion.
Legally speaking, SFLA operated within its rights. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, allowing individuals and organizations to express ideas without government interference. According to university policy, SFLA reserved the Belltower space in advance and complied with UCR’s Time, Place and Manner regulations. When asked to conclude the event, organizers packed and left without issue.
Free speech often assumes an equal and level playing field. This field is one where it is expected that all voices have equal access to visibility and credibility. In the real world, that balance is one that rarely exists, or some would even say nonexistent. National organizations like SFLA arrive with funding and coordinated messaging set to amplify their presence in ways individual students cannot match.
There is also the question of harm. Free speech arguments prioritize the ability to express oneself, not the impact that follows. Students walking through campus did not consent to engaging with graphic imagery or confrontational messaging, yet were made participants — whether active or not — simply by passing through the middle of campus. In this context, free speech becomes less about dialogue and more about exposure that cannot be avoided.
As media theorist Steven Shaviro argues, affect often precedes cognition. People feel before they think. The graphic imagery displayed at the event — multiple depictions of fetuses and abortions — exemplifies this. It is designed to evoke an immediate emotional reaction, not encourage the development of open dialogue or critique. Sensation content gets people’s attention more effectively than nuanced discussion, so what spreads and sticks is not necessarily what is most accurate, but more emotionally charged.
The location of the event matters as much as its content. Set in a high-traffic area near the Bell Tower and the HUB, the imagery becomes difficult to avoid. Even for those who choose not to engage, the visuals linger. It carries beyond the immediate moment and into the rest of the day.
While it could still be labeled as advocacy, it could also be described as ambient persuasion through one’s visual surroundings. The repetition and visibility of these images embed a framing of abortion into the everyday campus environment.
SFLA’s presence at UCR underscores a broader tension between the right to speak and the ethics of how that speech is delivered. While the organization operated within its legal and constitutional boundaries, the methods utilized raise important questions about consent and the use of public space. A college campus is built for learning and the open exchange of ideas.
The issue is not whether or not ideas should be shared, but if they can be shared in ways that invite understanding rather than demanding attention.
