What do you do when your arguments just can't hack it? You hack the opposition's website.
Last week, all Students for Life of America websites were hacked, causing a denial of service. Earlier this week, our intern attempted to access critical data on AbortionDocs.org and likewise found herself in a sea of 404 not found errors.
In both instances, the websites were restored in a matter of days. It's no big deal in the grand scheme of things. No one brief incident of ideological hacking is terribly newsworthy, even in the pro-life blogosphere.
But at a certain point, I have to wonder: who thinks this is a good way to convince people? "Oh wow, somebody brought the Students for Life website down. I guess humans aren't real people until they pass through the birth canal! Thanks, pro-abortion computer genius!"
Whatever the controversy, a good rule of thumb is that the side which seeks to censor information is the wrong side. Censorship is a sign that you can't convince people through legitimate channels. It is a sign that your position cannot survive the impact of opposing arguments. And it is a sign that the person doing the censoring is irrationally committed to a position that, on some subconscious level, he or she knows to be weak. Otherwise, why censor?
Thankfully, in an information-rich, interconnected, digital society, traditional censorship rarely wins out. The greater danger is self-censorship. Pro-lifers must never be afraid to speak up. The facts are on our side.