Pro-life Christians harrassed, arrested, and chased out of Connecticut

[janx]

The latest from Freeperland!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523405/posts

Posted on 11/16/2005 4:23:30 PM MST by 4lifeandliberty


In July of 2004, LLM's Truth Truck was pulled over by a Connecticut State Police Officer. This out-of-control Officer demanded that I immediately remove the pro-life messages that were displayed on the truck. He then proceeded to arrest my passenger, Michael Marcavage, charging him with two fabricated crimes. Then I was instructed to leave the State immediately or risk arrest myself.

Today we received word that the prosecutor was no longer pursuing the case against Michael and entered a nolle prosequi.

Nolle Prosequi defined: Latin for "we shall no longer prosecute." At trial, this is an entry made on the record by a prosecutor in a criminal case stating that he will no longer pursue the matter. An entry of nolle prosequi may be made at any time after charges are brought and before a verdict is returned or a plea entered. Essentially, it is an admission on the part of the prosecution that some aspect of its case against the defendant has fallen apart. Most of the time, prosecutors need a judge’s permission to “nol-pros” a case.

Click on the link for more information on this case. http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com

[Ravenseye]

1. Have you seen the f'ing truck?

*on edit* Not for the faint of heart *end edit*

http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000044.php

[janx]

3. I have seen photos of those trucks before, so I don't

need to look again.

I'm so glad they were kicked out of the state of Connecticut.

[Ravenseye]

5. Yeah

I'm for free speech, and of course this is their grounds for defense on this image, but how would they feel about a different image.

Say the side of a truck plastered with a woman being gangbanged by four different men...would they feel that should be allowed as well?

There are obviously limits on public decency for free speech, and this truck goes over the line.

[janx]

8. They know it goes over the line. That's why they do it. n/t

[lukasahero]

12. I'm pretty sure DU does not support any restrictions on free speech

At least that's what they keep saying whenever the topic comes up in relationship to women... But I'll be very interested to see how many people come out and disagree with you when it comes to freepers' free speech rights.

FTR - I agree with you. But I'm usually on the losing end of the "there are limits to free speech" battle here.

[Ravenseye]

27. Yeah the free speech topic is tricky

I'd like to be for unrestricted free speech, but I just can't see how it'd work. There are things I don't want my daughter hearing and seeing, and when you go out in public there has to be some accountability for action.

Free speech doesn't mean you can do or say or show ANYTHING you want at anytime, or anywhere. There are limits to what a person can do or say in public, because that's a shared space. It should have no political limitations, but otherwise the limitations need to be determined on an ongoing basis according to the local populace.

What this means is things that can be shown and said on the strip in Las Vegas are different than the things that can be shown and said on my residential street here in Pittsburgh, for instance.

Their truck is repulsive, and is trying to make a point using imagery that is offensive, shocking, and nauseating. That is their intention. To disgust. To shock. To make nauseus. They'll readily admit that. To me if a person wants to use their free speech rights to shock, offend, or disgust someone else they're doing so to commit harm, and could be limited in my opinion.

It's tricky though. I know people here disagree with me, but I think there are just limits to what you can do say and show in public. Free Speech isn't a trump card, otherwise you could smoke Marijuana in public with impunity and say you're doing it using Free Speech.

It just doesn't work that way.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. And as you said

you have to think of kids. They do have movies on raitings for a purpose. So if they can say whatever like this they should be able to not have raitings on movies and tv shows and music. Of course they wouldn't like that.

[Ravenseye]

36. It's just..there are lines that shouldn't be crossed

If you allow this image, you have to allow say a pornographic image of a gangbang.

If you allow it on the side of the truck for all to see...can you put it on a 3x3' posterboard and then walk up to my 1 year old daughter and hold it up plain for her to see a foot away from her face?

Can you park your billboard with that on it, on the street outside my house?

There HAS to be limits.

[tx_dem41]

39. Your criteria would seem to rule out showing battlefied dead from

Iraq on protest signs. Be careful what you ask for....

[Ravenseye]

41. Well I'd argue that on protest signs it's fine

If you're at an organized political protest and marching with that on a sign, then I'd argue that you're making fair use of public space and that people being aware there is a protest going on, can make a choice as to whether or not they go and encounter the protesters.

Driving a truck around an area is inflicting said imagery on all and sundry with no regard to whether a person wants that imagery to be shown. I wouldn't have a problem with that imagery on a protest sign at an anti-choice rally, but if it's on a truck parked outside my house, you're damn right I'd have a problem.

Like I said in another post, there IS a line, it's just a question of where you draw it. Would you support someone putting a pornographic image of a gangbang on a 3x3 poster, and then walking around a public street and out of nowhere putting that poster a foot in front of my young daughter?

Would you argue that should be legal?

[tx_dem41]

49. So you are limiting political protest to certain areas and to a

required level of organization?!? Sounds like those wonderful free-speech zones at the conventions. Sorry, I don't agree with your definition of political protest.

[Ravenseye]

51. It depends

I don't like free speech 'zones' as they tend to be parking lots surrounded by barbed wire a mile away from a convention. I don't know how else to define it. Is a political protest against laws preventing the sale of pornography able to be defined as one guy, holding a huge picture of a gang bang up a foot away from my daughter as I try and get her in the car parked on the curb?

Honestly I don't know what the solution is. I just know that there has to be a happy medium between those zones and you holding pornography up in the face of my child, simply because we're in public and you can do whatever the fuck you want to do.

There is a line. I draw that line at displaying imagery in public that I have no chance of preventing my child from seeing. If you think that's a valid thing to do, then I don't know what else to say.

[tx_dem41]

54. I am not the one bringing pornography into this discussion.

You are. Since, the SCOTUS has not ruled that as political speech, away with that strawman, please.

Abortion/antiwar protests are definitely political speech. Your limitations of one will effect the other. I am just pointing that out.

[Ravenseye]

57. Ok I'll stick to the topic

I don't want people showing pictures of aborted babies to my children. I find them offensive, and think they could harm my child through nightmares or the like.

I feel the same way about certain images of dead bodies from war, or other such horrific imagery or torture.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be made public. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be on the internet, or in the newspaper.

I'm saying I don't want them flashed to my children with me having no ability to stop them. To argue that the imagery is fine on the truck, are you arguing it's fine on a poster, in the public park, in front of my house...Where is the limit?

Are you saying you'd be fine with someone having the right to park that truck outside your house for as long as they like (since it's a public street) and then with a bullhorn say inside the truck, play sounds from horror movie like a chainsaw, and a woman screaming, etc.

Would that be ok to have outside your house in your residential neighborhood? It's a political protest right? They're on public property right? They should be allowed to do that for as long as they like?

[tx_dem41]

60. The SCOTUS has already ruled on the scenario that you describe..

and I have no problem with that ruling that a prolonged protest can fall under the RICO Act legislation. But, as long as the protest is on public property and is not causing a public safety hazard, I have no problem with it.

[Ravenseye]

64. Mmm, that's for economic losses though

They used the RICO act when it was companies recovering from econoimic losses..abortion clinics, companies and laboratories blocked by PETA...

from http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/faq.asp#peta

"Whether these protest activities constitute racketeering largely depends upon whether they qualify as acts of extortion or coercion under state law. Such protest activities are not likely to constitute a violation of the Hobbs Act, which is the federal extortion statute. Under the Hobbs Act, a defendant engages in extortion only if he "obtains" or attempts to "obtain" the property of another "with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, fear, or under color of official right." Since these protest activities do not obtain or attempt to obtain the property of another (they simply attempt to interfere with the business of another), it is difficult to depict them as acts of extortion."

So that wouldn't cover what i'm talking about. You'd still be ok with it? Honestly? Someone parking that truck right in front of your house 20 feet away, filling your front window....forever?

[Ravenseye]

55. oh I want to add something

Just because I said limiting where they could do it, doesn't mean zones. If people want to protest, and they gather in front of a valid place, where people are meeting about it, or some such, then they should be able to gather.

I just object to no definitions or restrictions at all, for either public safety reasons, or decency.

[tx_dem41]

56. Who would be in charge of defining what a "valid place" is? n/t

[Ravenseye]

61. I have no frickin clue

Honestly. I'm not claiming I have the answer, but I know what it's not. It's not free reign allowing people to do whatever they like wherever they like, but it's also not censoring it completely.

Honestly I think protests should be able to simply inform the police where they're going to be and when. The police should not be allowed to hand out permits, or prevent people in any way. If someone wants to protest they should be able to go to a civic location, police station, post office, whatever...and just simply inform them by filling out a form that they will be protesting in such and such an area on such and such a date. Maybe with a weeks notice or something to allow the police to try and come up with some alternate driving detours or whatever.

Yet if someone says they want to protest, they should just say, we're going to march from x to y on z from a to b, thanks...then it gets posted on the city webstie, so people are aware and then they do it....

What's wrong with that? The police know so they can protect public safety or driving routes. The people know so they can stay away if they like. People can protest whereever they like that is public, whever they want.

[leveymg]

45. Political speech is different from commercial speech. It can not be

restricted - that's clear from the First Amendment, that trumps all other laws and considerations.

The limit is reached only where it endangers life or public safety, such as the famous example of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, cited by Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes. Of course, as we saw in the Schenck case, even that high standard still leaves room for interpretation.

[Ravenseye]

52. So what defines political speech?

What if someone wants to defend the right to have sex in public, and is petitioning the government to make it legal to be naked and have sex anywhere at anytime. Would they then be defined as a political group who would be allowed to flash images of really really nasty sexual activties to my children if we'r ein public?

Would we no longer be safe to go to watch the fireworks on the fourth of july in a public park without people walking around holding up huge posters with pictures of pornography on it?

There's a line.

[leveymg]

74. The truck is symbolic political speech. No question about it.

Would you like to argue otherwise?

There's no bright-line definition. To paraphrase another Justice, political speech -- like pornogrpahy -- is recognizable when you see it.

The truck's billboard is protected by the First Amendment. Sorry. It offends me, too.

[Ravenseye]

80. I'm not saying it's not political speech

I'm just saying that your freedom of speech doesn't trump my domestic tranquility or general welfare (which is promised right there in the first paragraph of the constitution). There are no real absolutes. Nothing is black and white. Your rights don't trump mine. It's one thing to use symbolic political speech, it's quite another to use it in a way that I have no way to avoid, but more importantly no way to keep my children from avoiding.

If someone wants to show that image fine, but do so in a way that gives me a chance to prevent my children from seeing horrific images which may cause them nightmares, thank you.

[leveymg]

82. These "hard cases" are all about conflicting rights. If they weren't,

we wouldn't need judges and constitutional lawyers.

Actually, the child protection angle might be one of your strongest points if it were ever litigated. I recall there have been cases where anti-abortion activists wanted to picket the schools attended by the children of abortion providers, and the courts held that it was lawful for the city to keep the demonstrators away and out of sight of the kids.

I'm not sure sure the courts are prepared to extend that to permit a ban on graphic images that might be viewed by anyone on a public street.

This is a hard case, and I wouldn'r want to be the judge who has to decide it.

[Ravenseye]

84. As far as what the government can do

The FCC probably wouldn't allow these sorts of images to be broadcast at 8pm on a Tuesday on NBC, at least not without copious warnings. If the government can "protect" our children from those images, then why can't they do something here?

I agree, it's a hard case, with wide reaching implications. I just think it's one of those grey areas where each side has merit, and no matter who wins, everyone loses.

As a father though, I feel my child's welfare, trumps your right to parade a graphic image around in public.

[leveymg]

92. FCC rules don't apply to the side of a truck on the Merritt Parkway.

I wish there was an easy answer to this one.

[Ravenseye]

94. No They don't

I'm just saying that the government obviously does have the proven right to censor imagery and speech in one medium, so why not another?

[tx_dem41]

116. It doesn't have the right to censor political speech in that medium...

and like it or not...the picture and message on the truck is political speech.

[bloom]

119. images are images and speech is speech

and even speech is regulated in public as far as obscenities goes - and so are images - for that matter.

[lastliberalintexas]

128. And conduct is conduct

Yet the Court has ruled that the burning of the US flag constitutes political speech which is to be protected.

The fact that these people are anti-choicers and are spouting unpopular views with which most here disagree seems to be reason enough for many here to support limits to their speech. And *that* is what I find disturbing.

[bloom]

162. If everyone had the same access to sides of trucks

If everyone had the same access to the media - "free speech" might be free. I don't think it is - as was argued by Andrea Dworkin. I hadn't read this before - but it makes sense to me. And I think this truck case is another case of people with the means trying to intimidate people with less power.

And even if we all had the means to put up humiliating images of people from the groups that are trying to humiliate others - it would not be an improvement. It would just be a matter of who hates the others the most. That's what it looks like to me.

I don't think that much has changed since Andrea wrote this:

A great many men, no small number of them leftist lawyers, are apparently afraid that feminists are going to take their dirty pictures away from them. Anticipating the distress of forced withdrawal, they argue that feminists really must shut up about pornography--what it is, what it means, what to do about it--to protect what they call "freedom of speech." Our "strident" and "overwrought" antagonism to pictures that show women sexually violated and humiliated, bound, gagged, sliced up, tortured in a multiplicity of ways, "offends" the First Amendment. The enforced silence of women through the centuries has not. Some elementary observations are in order.

The Constitution of the United States was written exclusively by white men who owned land. Some owned black slaves, male and female. Many more owned white women who were also chattel....

The First Amendment, it should be noted, belongs to those who can buy it. Men have the economic clout. Pornographers have empires. Women are economically disadvantaged and barely have token access to the media. A defense of pornography is a defense of the brute use of money to encourage violence against a class of persons who do not have--and have never had--the civil rights vouchsafed to men as a class. The growing power of the pornographers significantly diminishes the likelihood that women will ever experience freedom of anything--certainly not sexual self-determination, certainly not freedom of speech.

The fact of the matter is that if the First Amendment does not work for women, it does not work. With that premise as principle, perhaps the good lawyers might voluntarily put away the dirty pictures and figure out a way to make freedom of speech the reality for women that it already is for the literary and visual pimps. Yes, they might, they could; but they will not. They have their priorities set. They know who counts and who does not. They know, too, what attracts and what really offends.

www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIVE.html

Freedom of Speech without people being grounded in equality and respect - freedom of speech that is an excuse for sexual harassment and racial slurs - freedom of speech that perpetuates the power status quo - is no favor to me.

I noticed that Europe doesn't have this libertarian b/w POV:

The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, permits restrictions "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[mongo]

164. How is this argument any different

than the "persecuted Christian" argument.

The growing power of the pornographers significantly diminishes the likelihood that women will ever experience freedom of anything--certainly not sexual self-determination, certainly not freedom of speech.

Sounds pretty similar to me:

"Christians are persecuted because stores say happy holidays instead of merry christmas"

"Christians are persecuted because they aren't ALLOWED to pray in schools" (I.E. not allowed to force all the kids to at least listen to a teacher led prayer)

Once a person's freedom and equality hinges on suppressing other peoples speech, it is no longer equality they are looking for.

And Kudo's for finding yet another thread you could turn into an argument against porn - even though the topic at hand is POLITICAL speech.

[bloom]

167. Since Christians

are by far the majority in numbers and in power and influence in this country - they can't claim to be any more persecuted than white men can.

Christians might pretend they are - as a way of trying to maintain their dominance - but dominant groups do that - and rather successfully - since they are the dominant group.


I'm arguing for the rights of people with less power - not for those who already have it.

[mongo]

169. So if you are a repressed minority

it is OK to supress the majority?

You're not arguing for the "rights" of anyone. You are arguing to supress speech.

[bloom]

174. I think someone could make the case

that sexual harassment laws and anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action laws are there to control - "suppress" even - the majority.

And people DO make that case.

Without them - people in minority groups - are repressed. It's what happens.

I think it's similar to environmental laws. Without them - people with a lot of power and money and no sense of what is best for everybody - destroy the world for everybody.

If everyone had concern for each other - including concern for children, etc. - there wouldn't need to be laws that "control" people. Unfortunately - that is not the case. So there are laws that work for the interest of the group and not just individuals.

Esp. with this case - we are talking about what should be out in the open where everyone can see it. A lot of things are restricted so that only people 18 years old or older can see them. I don't see what is up with all of a sudden saying there is no such restriction - just because it's on the side of a truck.

[mongo]

176. Your position seems to be that

I have the right to control individuals behavior in society because it is my belief (without any real proof) that my vision for society is more correct.

How is this any different than a Christian that wants to stop gay marriage?

[bloom]

180. I don' think that governments should run away

from any kind of moral type of laws. If they did - we would have any laws.

It would just be about whoever is strongest - whoever has the biggest gun. Whatever.

The reason why the US government shouldn't stop gay marriage is because this country should be considerate of the rights of people who are in the minority - such as gays - who may not follow as strict of a moral code as someone else.

The truck-drivers with fetuses would like us to conform to their supposed "moral code" - which is really an excuse to control women - and is not about the rights of any living person.

There is some expectation that people's rights be protected even if we don't follow the same orthodoxy. That doesn't mean that there are no morals. In fact - it seems like one of the points of the truck drivers with fetuses is that want to push that. They want people to say that yes - we have some sort of ethics/morality which says that people should be protected.

Your argument is very similar to my brother's which is that he has to believe that everything in the Bible is true - because if he says that there is any room for doubt - none of it can be believed. You would have us have NO morality -because if we have any - somebody might force us to have theirs.

I think people living in a society have to have some kind of code that they can agree to live with. And included in that is the protection of the rights of minorities.

[mongo]

184. Strawman anyone?

I don' think that governments should run away from any kind of moral type of laws. If they did - we would have any laws.

No - we would have laws where one person violated another person's well being or property.

The truck-drivers with fetuses would like us to conform to their supposed "moral code" - which is really an excuse to control women - and is not about the rights of any living person.

AND I CONDEM THEIR MESSAGE! But I defend their right to present it (and the folks in that truck were living, even if brain dead by my standards).

Your argument is very similar to my brother's which is that he has to believe that everything in the Bible is true - because if he says that there is any room for doubt - none of it can be believed. You would have us have NO morality -because if we have any - somebody might force us to have theirs.

And your argument is MY morality is better than yours - so you should live by it. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to follow their INDIVIDUAL idea of morality -- as long as it doesn't violate someone else's life or liberty.

I think people living in a society have to have some kind of code that they can agree to live with. And included in that is the protection of the rights of minorities.

Except you don't, do you?

What about the right's of these people to present their opinion? You don't want to protect their right to political speech.

What about the right to produce and distribute pornography that you PERSONALLY deem offensive? Do you support their rights?

You only support the rights of people who mirror your vision for society.

[bloom]

188. "we would have laws where one person violated another person's well being"

That's what I'm talking about. We entrust lawmakers who are supposed to make laws that take into account people's well-being.

And there are images that not everybody should have to be looking at - it's a matter of well-being. It is not necessary to their argument for the entire world to see those images. In fact - I think their intent is to destroy people's "well being".



You DO admit you're a libertarian don't you?

[tx_dem41]

189. Sounds like a great argument for the eradication of pornography,...

violent movies, trashy novels, etc, etc, etc.

What do you admit you are?

[mongo]

190. Well being does not include the right to never be offended.

Which is what you are asking for.

You DO admit you're a libertarian don't you?

I lean libertarian on social issues regarding INDIVIDUAL liberty, yes. But I wouldn't vote for a libertarian candidate. They would sell the country to the highest bidder.

You would be suprised how socialist I can be regarding national economic interests.

I'm usually too busy fighting you in free speech threads to post about those issues.

[ninkasi]

102. I guess the way I look at it...

If they have a right to show the images they do on their truck, then gay groups could also have trucks showing graphic images of gay sex, claiming it as using their First Amendment Rights. Also, if Fred Phelps claims he has a right to picket soldier's funerals, then I have the right to open a strip club next to his church.

The problem is that these people want all of the rights for themselves, and refuse to believe that they extend to others. Sometimes, though, we do have to limit public displays, because of children.

[Leopolds Ghost]

136. And you have a problem with a strip club next to Phelps's church because?

Zoning is all about control of "undesirables" within a community. Read the original literature from MIT on the subject, back in the 50's when zoning was first popularized... it is all about "Control Who Lives In Your Community", etc.

These days, zoning is used to keep churches and hospitals out of "residential only" areas (upper middle class gulags where residents are guaranteed "domestic tranquility")

So yes, your principle applies to Fred Phelps's church as much as it applies to the strip club. And it's been used against churches, strip clubs, and everything else detested by the upper middle class over the years, especially poor people.

Banning non-obscene "disturbing" photos from a public square which (in the suburbs) no longer exists due to enforced "domestic tranquility" and "child friendly communities" for those who can afford them, is just an extension of that precedent.

While we're at it, there's plenty of "disturbing" perfume ads on bus stops that could be eliminated by getting rid of the bus stops... like pictures of fetuses or pictures of dead people, they also are not pornography, yet are disturbing to many parents of small children. Not sure what to tell ya'.

[Leopolds Ghost]

135. What is so offensive and shocking about dead tissue?

Before you overreact, I'm playing devils advocate on both sides here...

I am opposed to criminalizing abortion but I personally consider it an unethical or at least religiously immoral action, on par with killing someone in self-defense. (I think all killing is ultimately wrong.)

I'm real unclear why so many of my fellow folks on the left are so unclear about why abortion must be considered "ok" simply in order to justify why it is not ILLEGAL. I thought the whole point of civil liberties was that the government cannot be the final arbiter of morality when the life of a CITIZEN is not at stake... When did folks become dedicated to this "new puritanism" where we must first argue about whether something is moral or not, "harmful to children" or not, and then decide whether or not to ban it, as if the gov't has that power over private matters between a citizen and her unborn child?

That notion that obscenity or morality allows the gov't to "do something" is the rationale used by the Republicans to create the culture war and distract liberals from talking about traditional MORAL values that gov't might actually do something about (you know, like helping the poor and all that) -- though thanks to the elected officials serving the interests of the rich and the comfortable white upper middle class, it is usually to harm the poor these days, not help them.

Common law dating back to Anglo Saxon days specifies that the gov'ts authority extends to men and women, not the unborn child or what the parents choose to do about carrying out a pregnancy. Are the "right wing" pro-lifers aware that the TRADITIONAL (i.e. biblical and medieval) stance (the one they heark back to) is that NO children (born or unborn) have "rights" and are considered chattel that could be killed by their parents for certain offenses, without consequence?? That exposure was legal in many ancient (and conservative religious) cultures precisely because abortion did not exist? They need to read up on their Old Testament!! It's liberal-minded modern folk, not the God of the Old Testament, who seems to have a problem with the death of children. That said...

(quote)

Their truck is repulsive, and is trying to make a point using imagery that is offensive, shocking, and nauseating. That is their intention. To disgust. To shock. To make nauseus. They'll readily admit that. To me if a person wants to use their free speech rights to shock, offend, or disgust someone else they're doing so to commit harm...

If it's medical waste, it's no more offensive than the remains of a deer carcass photographed by hunters.

If it's human remains, but legally justifiable taking of a life (on par with euthanasia or self-defense) then it's conservatives, not pro-choice folks, who should be talking about how the images are obscene.

Me, I'm distressed by abortion in the abstract but I have no problem with the images. Human life is, by and large, nasty, brutal and short. I agree with folks saying that a panel truck displaying Iraqi dead is equally the same sort of tactic and should not be censored in any way.

Ask any DOCTOR if they think the images are "obscene". Ask any Renaissance physician from the Enlightenment -- you know, the ones who were put in jail for grave-robbing because there was no legal way to practice the new science of surgery on corpses, so they had to exchume the graves of paupers and criminals to advance the science.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arianrhod]

181. I find myself in agreement with you.

My view on abortion has nothing to do with the so-called "morality" of killing (which I oppose philosophically and ethically in all its forms, including eating, and curing diseases, even though in so standing I am forced to violate my conscience every single day. Yes, I am a radical). Rather, I take my stand in absolute devotion to the rights of the living, breathing woman who is affected by her pregnancy, and in the insistence on her right to determine what is the best action for her.

I imagine that this is a minority view on DU.

[Arianrhod]

178. I disagree.

Free speech is just that--free. It has nothing to do with social, moral, religious or personal applicability. Rather, it is the permission to say (or demonstrate, as in the case of flag burning) anything that one wishes to, to make any point whatsoever that one wishes to, without fear of imprisonment, harrassment, discrimination or government censorship.

If I am to stand up for the right of the artist who produced "Piss Christ" to receive money from the NEA, if I am to stand up for Larry Flynt and Bob Guccione, then I also must stand up for Bill O'Reilly to say what he thinks. And I do so stand up. That doesn't mean I agree with his stance; and in fact, I contributed to the DU campaign begun by sfexpat2000 to get him off the air. This is not hypocrisy. It is democracy. The people's voice is to be heard on all subjects and situations and decisions. That means every side.

And personally, I think that toking is a legitimate form of protest, protected not by the First Amendment's advocacy of free speech, but rather by its acknowlegement of the right of the people to dissent from government policy.

[mongo]

187. Bravo!

:clap:

[leveymg]

18. I hate their message, and their truck, but I wouldn't stop them.

Lest they try to get away with banning the display of gruesome war images, or photos of lynchings, or Abu Ghraib torture photos. There's no real difference that I can think of. Censorship is censorship.

Tell me why you think there is a difference?

Of course, I wouldn't roll around the highways with a picture of dead people plastered on the side to make a political statement. But, I have some sensitivity.

[Ravenseye]

34. See Post 27

I'll elaborate more though, as I did in 27.

I don't believe that Free Speech is a trump card that can be played to allow a person to do whatever he or she wants in public. In private, as long as it's not against anyone's will, you should be able to do whatever you like. In public though you have to take some responsibility.

Those are images I don't want my young daughter to see. They might scare her, cause nightmares, or who knows what. When you're in public, while I don't think everyone must maintain a G rating, there has to be a limit to what you can do, say or show.

Also I think intent comes into play. If you're doing something in public with the explicit intent to harm people emotionally, there must be a line drawn as well. Parading around a billboard with that image I believe is done explicity to cause people emotional harm.

As far as your specific mentions. I think that the display of gruesome war images would fit in the same category, and so on. Anything showing a horrifically dead person would probably fit in my opinion. There are other ways to communicate your message in public.

Now should those images be available to people? Maybe at the truck in a handout? Sure. But plastered 20 feet high and driven around town is not the appropriate way to do it, imho.

I know people disagree with me, and that's fine. I just don't see why people should be allowed to inflict harm on me or my young daughter because it says "Congress shall make no law regarding...freedom of speech". To take that as meaning someone in public can hold a picture of an aborted baby, or pornographic imagery up to my young daughter...well that's nuts.

[lastliberalintexas]

101. Because in a PUBLIC place, you are exposed to the PUBLIC

It is only in your home or other property controlled/owned by you that you, as a private land owner, have the right to control the speech of others. And even that can be limited to an extent if the property in question has a quasi-public property area like the sidewalk of a stripmall.

And again, this "for the children" mantra is what has been used by the conservatives for years to try to limit (esp liberal!) speech.

The excerpt from Cohen v. California, again:

"Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. See, e. g., Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971). While this Court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue, e. g., Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970), we have at the same time consistently stressed that "we are often `captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech." Id., at 738. The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.

In this regard, persons confronted with Cohen's jacket were in a quite different posture than, say, those subjected to the raucous emissions of sound trucks blaring outside their residences. Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes."

[FreedomAngel82]

20. And they wonder why they were pulled over

Hmm I wonder if they would like it if a anti-war person went around with wounds and all the horrible things we've done to the Iraqi's. That isn't being pro-life. Oh and if they knew Kerry they would know he personally is pro-life but is for keeping Roe V Wade. These people are ignorant fools and are using God for their own agendas. I wonder if they're for the death penalty and for the Iraq "war".

[Marr]

26. How is it different from torture photos?

I really don't see a difference- in terms of public decency- between this and the Abu Ghraib photos, which many of us (myself included) argue should be released. Images are powerful things, and I'm not surprised that anyone with a political message should wish to use them.

If you had a bus with Abu Ghraib prison torture photos plastered on the side, I'd argue for your right to do that as well.

[lukasahero]

33. Released, yes. Displayed on a truck that rolls around town?

I'd say no. And there's the difference.

I don't think those pictures are appropriate for very young children to see and wouldn't want my children (if I had any) to be assaulted with them while walking home from school any more than I'd want them to be accosted by the pictures on this truck.

[Marr]

35. Well, I do respect your consistency.

But I must respectfully disagree.

[lukasahero]

40. Fair enough. :) eom

[lastliberalintexas]

99. Children have been the excuse for a number of cases

in which the government has attempted to suppress speech. The one that sketchily comes to mind was that of a young man who was protesting the Vietnam War and had the words FUCK THE DRAFT on his jacket. Thankfully the Supreme Court disagrees with people wanting to protect the children and instead has erred on the side of the First Amendment- though I do understand and agree that you all have good intentions. :)


Here is an excerpt from the Court's opinion in Cohen v. California:

"Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. See, e. g., Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971). While this Court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue, e. g., Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970), we have at the same time consistently stressed that "we are often `captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech." Id., at 738. The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.

In this regard, persons confronted with Cohen's jacket were in a quite different posture than, say, those subjected to the raucous emissions of sound trucks blaring outside their residences. Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities **simply by averting their eyes.**" (emphasis mine)

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arianrhod]

191. I have never sheltered my children from the reality of the world.

What you deem an "assault", I deem a "life lesson".

The world is not a Disneyesque wonderland. It's harsh, brutal, and nasty. I chose to expose my children to that reality, rather than shelter them from it. All of them turned out just fine.

OTOH, legend has it that it was just such a sheltering that caused Siddhartha Gautama to become the Buddha. So maybe there's something to be said for your viewpoint, too. :)

[Roland99]

37. But OH NO!! We can't show pictures from Abu Ghraib...that's too atrocious

fucking hypocrites.

[Ravenseye]

38. Agreeed

They very surely are hypocrites. I dont' think either should be plastered on busses and driven around town, but they're just outright hypocritical.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

59. These idiots NTB harrassed even more!!!

I'm sure if I drove around in a truck with images THEY found offensive, they would complain and say it wasnt a free speech issue.
Plus, I love how they take photos of things that are the EXCEPTION, not the rule and put Kerry's name on it it. Idiots.

[tsuki]

78. It looks like The Picture of Dorian Cheney. eom

[edbermac]

98. Holy shit, that's a few blocks from where I work!

The State House is right up the street from there; how'd I miss that?

[proud2BlibKansan]

115. Santorum put his dead baby's picture on a panel truck?

How sick.

[Raksha]

126. Thanks for the warning....

I had a feeling they'd post something gross like that on the side of the truck, so I didn't barf when I clicked on the link and saw the picture. Is this stuff supposed to win them new converts, or what? It just makes them look like the perverts they are.

[Leopolds Ghost]

146. The pictures are of medical waste... whatever you do, don't let yr babies

grow up to be doctors.

If you have a moral objection to killing fetuses, that's fine too.

It's your decision as an individual, just like the decision to terminate your husband's or wife's life if they are terminally ill.

The group wants to ban all abortion (not just killing fetuses but terminating early pregnancy, etc.) Pro-choice groups that find abortion (like, say, teenage smoking or euthanasia or what have you) distasteful but do not believe it is an issue for a democratic gov't founded on the 9th Amendment, should come out and say so. many commentators on the left, including E.J. Dionne, Nat Hentoff, Colman McCarthy etc. have urged them to do so, and I agree with those commentators. Barring that, complaining about medical waste, produced in the absence of violence (I assume) being "obscene" is a bit hypocritical.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

173. Dear God

I agree with the officer 100%. It'd cause ME an accident to see a truck driving with that image on it.

[fortyfeetunder]

193. Not only is it in poor taste

It is effing stupid. :wtf: do they think they can get away with it?

OTOH, had DUers had a truck lithographed of dead and maimed Iraqi's the freepers would be frothing at the mouth calling for our heads!

[tx_dem41]

194. I believe there are hypocrites on both sides. n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Oh, stop! I'm crying my eyes out! The poor persecuted people!

[janx]

4. Exactly.

;-)

[QC]

24. Free speech for me, but not for thee! n/t

[MrMonk]

6. Stopped for parading obscene photos through Connecticut

"pro-life messages", my ass!

[marbuc]

7. "Essentially, it is an admission on the part of the prosecution

that some aspect of its case against the defendant has fallen apart."

No it isn't! Nolle prosequi simply means the prosecutor will drop the case, with no judgement on the validity of that case. I should know, After arrested for, ahem, a youthful indescrection, my plea bargain included this entry. I was guilty, and fulfilled the terms of the agreement, so the prosecutor did not pursue the case.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. on a rail? were they tarred and feathered? One can only hope.

[mondo joe]

10. I'd like to see a photoshop of that truck but with maimed Iraqi kids

and a BUSH / CHENEY sign.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Yes!

Someone should counteract them with that and see what they'll do. Show the results of napalm being used in Iraq.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tjwash]

11. Let me guess,all white males driving the van, and posting on the FR thread

nt

[janx]

13. Probably. n/t

[Tempest]

14. Why isn't the IRS threatening to remove their tax exempt status?

They are obviously politicking, prominently displaying Kerry and Edwards' names on the truck.

[depakid]

42. The IRS only does that to left leaning churches

who oppose the war:

Church: Anti-war sermon imperils tax status
Officials say IRS has warned church over pre-election message

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/antiwar.sermon.ap/

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

15. Just another example of Republican sicko perversion.

They show gruesome photos not because they hate them but because they relish them.
Same as how they view pornography.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. And probably gay people

Did you see on the left side they had "the truth about homosexuality". The truth based on a religious belief system.

[jody]

16. One either supports free speech for all or accepts censorship from

whatever political party is in power.

IMO, the signs were an acceptable exercise of free speech.

[txaslftist]

22. Yep. Free speech means enduring even stuff you hate.

[Ladyhawk]

100. True. We don't have a right to not be offended.

I believe that these folks were exercising their 1st amendment rights. It may offend some, but what are you gonna do? The Abu Ghraib torture photos are offensive, but I believe they should be released.

[Marr]

28. I agree.

[lukasahero]

43. Why has everything become either/or in our society now?

Why isn't there room for discussion and compromise?

[janx]

46. Because of an absence of critical thought.

I teach college writing and have a heck of a time getting just that point across. So many people see things as black/white, either/or--known as a false dilemma, a logical fallacy.

The media feed us this fallacious logic all the time. Many people have now been brought up seeing it and hearing it every day.

[lukasahero]

75. That's so discouraging...

While my question was partly rhetorical, thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize there was an actual definition for obstinance, stubbornness and an absolute unwillingness to consider alternatives.

It's even more discouraging to see it in use here. We're all so 'all or nothing' these days that we're simply screaming past each other. Ultimately, it's going to end violently. There's no other way it can end if we don't learn how to talk TO each other instead of AT each other.

Thanks again for the explanation.

[jody]

91. As one who teaches college writing, I'm confident you teach your students

to thoroughly research all sides of an issue before they jump to conclusions.

See my post # 89.

[jody]

89. We've had extensive discussion and several SCOTUS decisions.

Please tell me which SCOTUS decision upholding or denying free speech do you disagree with.

As a start, you might wish to focus on First Amendment annotations and ACLU’s position on free speech.

In anticipation of your reply "I already know those things" I then ask "Why are we having this discussion?"

[Ravenseye]

97. ok but there's so many...

Is there any particular case you'd like to discuss?

[jody]

104. No because I support the widest possible interpretation of freedom

of speech, i.e. ACLU's position.

I believe ACLU would support the defendant in the OP incident.

If you agree with me, then we perhaps share the same view on free speech. :hi:

[Ravenseye]

50. I disagree

There are limits. Should you be able to show people that image? Yes. Should you be able to do it however you like? No.

Free Speech is not a trump card, otherwise you could have gay sex in front of the U.S. Capitol and then smoke a joint and say you're doing a protest piece about the legalization of gay marriage, and marijuana.

Hell you could light up in front of a police station and say you're making a freedom of speech point about how ludicrous it is to prevent people from smoking.

It's still illegal. Same as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.

There are limits on what you can say, show, and do in public, and only a hardcore nut would disagree. If there are obviously limits then it's only a question of where those limits should be. I would argue that if it's ok for a child to be exposed to them with no warning, then it's fine.

Holding up a pornographic image on a 3x3 foot poster a foot away from my child though isn't free speech. It's being a perverted dick, and you're harming my child.

[jody]

90. See my post #89. n/t

[lastliberalintexas]

105. THANK YOU!

Geez, for a moment I thought I'd wandered to the Federalist Society site.

[JNelson6563]

114. Too bad we can't legislate common sense

I can imagine my kids innocently looking out the car window and seeing that. Nightmares for them. I think it's sick and twisted.

I expect nothing else from folks with their particular psychological problems though....

They'll terrorize the masses to ram their view down the throats of others.

Julie

[NuttyFluffers]

117. incorrect. obscenity is not protected speech.

it's just that each community can determine what is obscene on a community by community basis. the supreme court has decided that it cannot decide what obscene means for everybody so it left that job to 9th and 10th amendments which relegates authority to the people and their local gov'ts. that's why you can have XXX theaters in SF but none in a city nearby like... Fremont.

now you can mail porn and photos like this between consenting homes. that way it's not public. but parading around the public streets with graphic photos that might or might not go against the state laws of CT (i don't know their state constitutional laws, let alone city laws) is not guaranteed by the US constitution to be protected.

[mongo]

165. The pictures are not obscene

In order for a work to be obscene, it has to pass the three prong Miller test:

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


So unless you think that these pictures of medical waste are for raising sexual interest, and that the signs have NO political value -- they are NOT obscene.

[NuttyFluffers]

196. sonds like you have no idea what can be used to raise sexual interest...

;)

fyi, human depravity runs deep.

[mongo]

192. Oh and one more thing

The city of Fremont is NOT ALLOWED to outlaw XXX theaters -- they can only true to zone them out of business -- but they have to ALLOW them somewhere within their borders.

[mmonk]

17. Freeper fundamentalists

declaring persecution?
:rofl:
Persecution is their life's work.

[mzteris]

19. Marcavage

is a total whack.

[progressivebydesign]

21. There are limits to free speech. Ever yelled "FIRE" in a theatre?

Ever pasted pornographic images on your walls outside your house? Do you have sign limits in your town? Do you have a billboard up in your backyard? Do you have photos of murder victims taped to your car doors? Do you have an obscene license plate? Can your kid wear a beer t-shirt to school? Can you use a racial slur at work?

[txaslftist]

25. Lotsa questions, with different answers.

pornography? not protected
sign limits? subject to regulation, not prohibition
billboard? subject to regulations in place prior to home purchase
murder victims on car doors? Subject only to the limits of your good taste (or lack thereof)
obscene license plate? obscenity is not protected
beer t-shirt? my school would permit it, but its understandable if a school wouldn't, and that's not really "free speech".
Racial slur? Can get your ass fired, but it's not against the law.

Man, this is like a bar exam question.

[lastliberalintexas]

106. Actually, even some pornography is protected

Only an "obscenity" (whatever that may be) is deemed to be wholly without protection. :)

[Leopolds Ghost]

145. Love your sig -- shades of what's happening in France and NOLA n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

23. They're not pro-life and they're not Christian

just sayin'.

[kweerwolf]

29. What bad news!

Not about the truck, but that Marcavage wasn't "shot resisting arrest."

[kay1864]

44. Finally the facts...

After Yahooing this, and getting nothing but anti-choice sites (which reprinted the same stuff verbatim)...

I finally found this:

State police said they received several complaints from the public about the graphic nature of the photos and that the truck was driving too slowly in the center lane, backing up traffic.

“Both the images and the vehicle’s speed were causing a curiosity backup and causing a public safety concern,” said Sgt. Roger Beaupre, a state police spokesman. “That’s why they pulled them over.”

A passenger, Michael Marcavage, 24, of Lansdowne, Pa., got out of the vehicle to videotape the incident and was walking on the highway, Beaupre said. After Marcavage repeatedly refused to comply with orders to get back into the vehicle for his own safety, he was arrested and charged with interfering with police and reckless use of the highway by a pedestrian, police said.

So much for "two fabricated crimes"...

[Leopolds Ghost]

144. Walking on the public highway... just like them lawless looters

trying to escape New Orleans on foot. The nerve!!!!

Remind me not to build an art car as it may qualify as a rubbernecking hazard in the affluent, socially liberal, bedrock conservative (i.e. LIEBERMAN) state of Connecticut.

[Eugene]

47. Traffic hazard, disorderly conduct/resisting arrest... charges dropped.

That truck is a rubbernecking hazard. Stopping it was justifiable.
From their own discription of the article, the passenger refused
to comply with police orders to stay in the vehicle, standard procedure.

They shouldn't whine. They got off real easy.

[davidinalameda]

48. does anyone else think this whole thing may be bogus

or at least the freepers are stretching the truth about this

[Ravenseye]

53. of course they are

They've already proven that they're lying about why they were arrested in the first place.

[mongo]

58. How anyone who loves our constitution

can say that this is not obviously free speech is beyond me.

The message is presented to affect POLITICAL CHANGE.

This is so far past any kind of grey line where a public display is prurient, etc. The message is political - what other types of political speech would you like to ban?

[GreenPartyVoter]

63. My little kids have a right to not see those pictures, but

if that truck drives by them it's too late. They will have been exposed to a nightmare-inducing image. Why does the truckdriver's right to share his beliefs trump my right to protect my little kids' innocence?

That's what chaps my hide most of all. These people claim they are screaming, "Think of the children".. but they aren't thinking about the kids that might be in range of their nightmare-mobile... except as possible recruits for shouting out their message to others. x(

[Ravenseye]

65. I totally agree

Free Speech must have limits if it can harm children, whether that image is of an aborted baby, or anything else. Believe me, that image could harm a young child, in a big way. I don't care who you are, your rights to free speech don't allow you to harm my child.

[mongo]

68. And what proof do you offer that these images will

"harm your child". In exactly what way will they be harmed.

If I have a big scary dog in my yard that barks viscously at your child and scares him, should you be able to sue me too?

[Ravenseye]

81. Mental and Emotional Anguish

You really need me to prove to you that graphic images can harm children emotionally?

http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=2906

Just googling for links...

"graphic images of burned or dead people, or devastated, bombed-out houses. Negative images can cause nightmares, bedwetting and anxiety. "

http://www.jbcc.harvard.edu/advocacy/articles/war.htm\

"Horrific images can cause nightmares or may awaken other fears and anxieties; children may need extra comforting."

I'm sure if I wanted to dig more I could find actual studies, but do you really need those?

As far as your question about the dog, I'd say it's something that could go a variety of ways. The main aspect though is that intention. If you brought your dog out, and led the dog up to my child then commanded it to bark and feux attack my child in order to scare her out of her wits, then yes...I should be able to sue you.

If your dog is normally not a barker, and just happened to do that, then you had no intention of causing emotional distress, then I wouldn't sue.

If you just were a maniac who kept dangerous psychotic dogs in your front yard, i'd just secretly feed them rat poison and skip the legal system. ;)

[mongo]

170. Ah - I see now - YOUR rights and your children trump everyone else

If you just were a maniac who kept dangerous psychotic dogs in your front yard, i'd just secretly feed them rat poison and skip the legal system. ;)

Wow. Now I understand.

[Ravenseye]

172. Ah - no I get it - you have no sense of humor

AND your rights trump everyone elses.

[mongo]

177. No - an individuals right to free speech

trumps your (non-existant) right to never be offended.

[Ravenseye]

183. There are more rights in the constitution other than speech

How bout the tenth ammendment...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The first ammendment specifically states that

"Congress shall make no law respecting...."

So the 'Freedom of Expression' are powers that are not delegated to the Federal government, but not probibited to the states..therefore they're reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Hence about a trillion local laws.

That's the great thing about our constitution. It's not a black and white document, which you apparently think it is.

Freedom of Speech is not a trump card.

Oh I could also go on about how the constitution promises to provide Domestic Tranquility or something like that, but why. You obviously are so stuck in an all or nothing proposition you're not even willing to begin to think about it in any way other than your near-religious position.

Have a good one! :hi:

[tx_dem41]

185. OMG...I'm used to making this argument towards people on the right...

not to a fellow DUer. PLEASE read the 14th Amendment. It proscribed the States from impinging on those Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Heck..that's why the 14th Amendment exists and is usually loved by Liberals and Libertarians and reviled by Conservatives.

[mongo]

186. Take a fuc king civics course

before you go spouting about state's rights

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means our bill of rights applies to ALL citizens. States cannot make laws that violate our civil rights.

And this:

You obviously are so stuck in an all or nothing proposition you're not even willing to begin to think about it in any way other than your near-religious position.

WTF? Are signature lines turned off today? I sell porn for a living -- I'm not exactly the most religious person on DU. And just to say it one more time -- I hate the message, but I defend the individuals right to say it.

[mongo]

67. The truckdriver has a right

because it's politcal speech.

The one thing that's most responsible for getting us out of the Vietnam war was greusome footage of dead, bloody soldiers on the 6pm news.

That was on PUBLIC airwaves. Should these images have been suppressed "for the Children"?

[lukasahero]

71. People have to turn on the TV to watch that

It's a different argument.

[mongo]

76. It's a short hop down the same slippery slope.

[GreenPartyVoter]

73. My parents sent me out of the room during those newscasts because I

was terrified of them.

But a truck on the street is different in that they can't make it disappear. It will be forced on people whether they want to deal with it or not.

I have no problem with them driving a truck around with a sign saying what they think. I do have a problem with them driving around images that I don't want my kids to see. I won't let my 5 and 7 year old watch ER on tv because it's too gory and frightening, why should someone else be allowed to show them something even scarier?

On the tv or the internet there would be safeguargs in place. A warning that graphic content was forthcoming and a way to turn it off or change sites. That option is not available in real life with these trucks.

[mongo]

77. shielding your kids from the real world

isn't protecting them. Talking to them about it is.

The issue at hand is a sign. We're not gluing their eyeballs open and forcing them to watch hours of horrendous video ala A Clockwork Orange.

Think about what children were recently exposed to in the past, when we were an agrarian society. Birth, death, slaughter were routine to them.

Any discomfort by a momentary glimpse at this sign is outweighed by the implications of suppressing political speech.

[GreenPartyVoter]

79. No, at 5 and 7 I don't have to give them the full story on the

birds and the bees let alone what can be done with the resulting fetus. The rule of thumb is answer the questions as they come up. We haven't come anywhere close to those kinds of heavy details and difficult issues and there is no reason to force it on them just because the world is a tough place.

I prefer to let them keep their innocence as long as I can.

A compromise: These people can hand out sealed pamplets of their pictures as they stand on the street corner holding text signs and that tell people what they are there for. Thus they aren't being suppressed in any way, it's not being shoved down my throat, and my kids aren't being mentally and emotionally molested.

[Leopolds Ghost]

140. Let's turn it around (no offense, but just for the sake of argument:)

No, at 5 and 7 I don't have to give them the full story on the horror of warfare let alone what can be done with the resulting trauma to children from napalm, etc. The rule of thumb is answer the questions as they come up. We haven't come anywhere close to those kinds of heavy details and difficult issues and there is no reason to force it on them just because the world is a tough place.

I prefer to let them keep their innocence as long as I can.

A compromise: These anti-war people with their pictures of napalm victims from the Iraq and Vietnam Wars can hand out sealed pamplets of their pictures as they stand on the street corner holding text signs and that tell people what they are there for. Thus they aren't being suppressed in any way, it's not being shoved down my throat, and my kids aren't being mentally and emotionally molested.

[GreenPartyVoter]

150. I don't think children should have to see that either. I am

all for stopping war especially since it harms children, but we aren't returning their innocence to them by ripping away another child's. All we have done is harm more kids.

If my children can't go into a website or a movie theater and watch a film with those kinds of images, why is it ok for someone to bring the images out of those places, on to the street, and into my kids faces? People might do something about the situation we wanted to bring attention to faster if it means getting those images off the street because they want to protect their kids. Yes, that might be true but it would also be true then that we were using the children in a bad way to make that happen. :(

[Ravenseye]

85. Think about what kids were exposed to in the past?

You mean when we owned slaves? Thought of women as second class citizens? Treated any slight mental illness, or even blindness or deafness, as a reason to lock people up in an asylum? Put children to work in factories?

Yeah they were exposed to horrific sights far more than today's children, but that doesn't mean they were better off for it. We're trying to be better. We're not trying to scar or emotioally cripple our children. We're trying to raise healthy, kind human beings.

Political Speech (ie "The Freedom of Speech") is not a trump card above all other rights.

[mongo]

168. And where is the right to never be offended in the public square

spelled out in the constitution?

In fact, the SC says otherwise.

[Leopolds Ghost]

141. I see no diff between a truck and TV...spec when TV is always on! n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

142. Today? They Would Be... I mean, They Are... "For The Children"

And all too many affluent children of the 60's (many of whom are now selective conservatives who voted for Reagan, Bush etc. while proclaiming their own "social tolerance") are more concerned about the emotional protection of their grandchildren than the deaths of Iraqi children from bombs, now that the draft is off the table.

A wardrobe malfunction is far more important than keeping images of violence off the TV and explicit cheesecake off of billboards, UNLESS IT IS FAKE. That's why the unreal, videogame gov't images of satellite destruction are permitted... When did we start worshiping fakery in an effort to protect children from reality while still satisfying the prurience of the average American?

[lastliberalintexas]

107. Actually, they don't

Neither children nor adults in the US have the right to be safe from things which we might find offensive once we leave the confines of our residence.


Though I do sympathize with that concern, as I am a parent myself. But then, it would just give me yet another opportunity to demonstrate to my son what jerks right wingers really are.

[GreenPartyVoter]

110. Offensive is one thing, damaging is another. Kids have a right not

to be damaged on purpose.

[Leopolds Ghost]

143. Nightmares and discomfort are necessary to a child's moral growth

Fairy tales that give kids nightmares are the ones with the most clearly remembered lessons. That is how life works... There is a difference between discomfort or something frightrning, which may prove educational and a learning experience, and actual brutalization.

And hell, I'd say going to the dentist as a young child was close to brutality for me! :-)

[northzax]

66. it is certainly free speech

and protected. I am unclear in my own mind, however, about the use of graphic imagery in the public square, or on the freeway as the case may be. While speech is protected, creating a danger to other drivers may perhaps be a problem.

[BlueIris]

62. Oh. FR nonsense. I was ready to hit Ignore/Hide Thread. Carry on.

As nausiating as this discussion may continue to be. But at least I can continue to be proud of the few pro-choice people on this site who "get it" and aren't going to take any crap off of misogynists.

:thumbsup:

[mongo]

72. I don't have to like the message

to argue for their right to present it.

But better for you to charge anyone who will defend unpopular speech as "misogynists".

Jeesh...

[Celeborn Skywalker]

87. Yeah right.

So people defending the right to free speech are misogynists? Go peddle that bullshit somewhere else.

[Sgent]

69. My thoughts if ayone cares...

1) Its political speech. It is and should be protected from almost all restrictions.

2) Its a public saftey hazard due to slow driving and "rubbernecking". Just like yelling fire in a public theater, this is not allowed.

[DanCa]

70. Let's give the cop a medal and for the record the anti choicers arent

christian. Anyone who hand links outside a church to keep people with a different point of view have really missed the point of christianity imo.

[OnionPatch]

83. Geez, when first reading this

It sounded like he got stopped for having a normal sized, text sticker that said "pro-life" or something. This is just obscene. I wonder if they would object to us driving around with trucks and pictures of the bloody remains of bombed-out, innocent Iraqi children.

[CornField]

86. I'm thinking of having my own 'pro-life' mobile (warning)

Since we are going to travel across four states, I was thinking of plastering my vehicle with a few photographs...







And those are the mild ones...

If they want to talk "culture of life" -- then they should discuss it all.

[Tsiyu]

93. Do It

I had similar images plastered all over my vehicle at one point - along with Swamp Rat's "Who would Jesus bomb?" graphic (still on the car.)

I now have student drivers using that car, so I have to keep the car low profile for a while.

But those images of maimed and dead children reach people. Some will get pissed. Most will look away. All will be thinking about what they have just seen, however.

With support for this war at an all-time low, now is the time to display the reality of the evil so called "Pro-Lifers."

They don't care about the pain of those Iraqi children, but most Americans will.

Do it.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CornField]

163. "The pro-abortion crowd" ??

I hope you enjoy your short stay here on DU... although I do hope it is a bit longer so you might actually learn a few things.

If you cannot understand the difference between an 8-year-old child and an 8-week-old fetus, then I hold little hope for your understanding of all the complex issues surrounding a woman's right to choose. Still, I'm gonna try...

Until the day comes when people are required to provide for another life through transplants, giving blood, providing bone marrow and so-forth, I will continue to believe that we are all free people, capable of making our own medical decisions, even when those decisions directly impact another life.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

88. If this story is true (which I doubt)

then the freep is right to be angry. It's a reprehensible thing to show but I believe that it is protected speech. Would some of you saying this is not free speech also say the same about the display of photos of wounded and maimed Iraqi's that are so common at anti war demonstrations? In my mind, they're both examples of protected speech.

[Demoiselle]

95. I think it's a real traffic hazard. In a demonstration, fine.Highway,NO!

[hogwyld]

103. There's a difference

when you go to an anti war protest, you choose to go of your own free will. With the truck, the images are being forced upon you. I for one do not want my little children to have nightmares, or be scared out of their wits. Children cannot rationalize images the same way as adults.

[lastliberalintexas]

109. And your children do NOT have the right to limit the First Amendment

rights of others. Sorry.

Let me reiterate that this tactic has been used in the past by the conservatives to quash liberal speech, and the Court has thankfully thus far refused to entirely buy into it. It is only within the confines of your own home that you have the right to be free from that which offends you.

[hogwyld]

179. And what about my yard?

Suppose my kids are playing in the yard, and this abomination drives down the residential street? Are you saying I have no role in what my children see? Bullsh*t! Let them park that thing at the anti-abortion rally, say what the hell they want. But I will not allow them to foist their backward views upon me or my kids.

[jazzjunkysue]

96. And if you had photos of dead women from illegal abortions.....

It's too offensive. Simply write on the bus that you're pro life and you've had your say. Any woman who had had to face that procedure and has mised feelings about it should not be abused in this way. This could cause lots of accidents, at the very least.

Anti choice people are allowed to do this in front of planned parenthood, and so can't cry fowl.

This is too much to drive all over town.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Leopolds Ghost]

139. I realize you oppose abortion but...

Jesus taught that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Prostitution was considered a much greater sin than abortion in His day and age... and let me be clear about what Abortion was, until the 1800s... it was exposure on the side of the mountaintop. It was almost never prosecuted because of how common it was. What can I say? Those days are over because of abortion, not because of a crackdown on infanticide of unwanted babies, of the sort that all mammalian creatures which have no access to abortion engage in... (many/most creatures thankfully have a biological procedure for terminating pregnancies in the womb, in times of stress... known as miscarriage)

And let me be clear... in the days before abortion was possible, infanticide was not some horrendous act committed by devious mothers (although we would consider it horrendous, and frequently so did the mother, despite the fact she felt, or was compelled, to do it)... it was usually a family decision... almost always made by the husband or father or father in law... "Thanks" to abortion those days are over.

You can't make all killing illegal unless you give the gov't unlimited power to threaten and control... such power only comes at the threat of a gun. Do we want a gov't like that?

You ask why not make a person feel bad if they have mixed feelings... because it is not the Christian thing to do. "Judge not, lest ye not be judged." And it's not been the gov'ts business, for the same reason the gov't has not tried to ban all recreational drugs, or for that matter, any and all forms of killing. It is up to us as individuals to make our own decisions, not the fascist police state. that is what the fundies don't understand.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jazzjunkysue]

195. I'm so proud! I provoked a troll! And it sounds like a real ugly one, too.

Thanks mods, for swatting it out of the way.

Too bad I didn't get a chance to read the 12th century drivel.

[librechik]

108. if they keep interfering in our government with their braindead "religion"

they will get this wherever they go.

[leeroysphitz]

111. "pro-life messages"

This asshole makes it sound like the cop was demanding that they remove a bumper sticker or a window clingy for no good reason. I'm no constitutional scholar but driving this monstrosity along the highways and byways of any state in full view of all, including, of course, children is offensive beyond all reason and the officer in question wasn't being at all unreasonable in removing the vehicle.

I oppose the war. I'm going to by a panel truck and paint images of charred, mutilated and boody Iraqi babies. Then I'm gonna drive it in front of this assholes house in full view of his kids.

[mongo]

171. By asking them to remove the signs

the officer was violating their first amendment rights.

The constitution and the courts are very clear here - and with good reason.

[chat_noir]

112. penis, boobies and slogans such as "Juggs Rule" vs bloody fetuses

In recent weeks, Casey Maddox has tried to lighten up the Plaza's Thomas Kinkadean art scene by parking his own creation in front of storefronts. It's a 1986 Chevy Astro van emblazoned with cartoonish hand-painted images of a penis, boobies and slogans such as "Juggs Rule."

Maddox, a recent transplant from St. Louis, says he was inspired to create his "Mustache Wagon" by artists there who use their cars as canvases. Recently, though, he's had close calls with Highwoods Properties' security force.

"I started getting hassled immediately," Maddox says. At first, he says, anonymous critics just left warning notes on his windshield. Then his brother, who works at Kona Grill, informed him that guards were going door-to-door to find him. Other service industrians (he's not naming names) seem to dig his cause and have warned him when officers might be staking out the van.

But Maddox is getting nervous because he doesn't exactly know his legal rights. So the Pitch has found him a legal mentor: Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, a Kansas anti-abortion zealot best-known for driving around in "Truth Trucks" — vans plastered with images of bloody fetuses. We've seen 'em on the Plaza.

http://www.pitch.com/Issues/2005-11-10/news/backwash.html


The Plaza is a very exclusive part of Kansas City.

[Crowdance]

113. This thread is like turning on the light and watching the cockroaches

scurry about. The anti-woman crowd here is pretty dependably stepping forward to defend their fellow travelers in the anti-choice effort. Hard to believe they also claim to be Democrats, considering they don't give a passing thought to the lives of women, only to the "political" (read: religious) speech of these sick puppies.

[bloom]

118. That's how it sounds to me also...

Taken to the extremes that some would seem to like to take things - all images - no matter how disgusting and offensive to others would be allowed. Apparently they would have children have to stay inside their houses until they were 18 - because they are not willing to have society be reasonably restricted. Every street, every vehicle would be a moving rape and murder scene. Too bad if people don't want to look at it. Their rights cannot be violated. It's insane. What a hell-hole the world would be. Maybe someone could get some footage from the BTK killer and everyone can play it non-stop out the back window of their vehicle. Wouldn't that be fun. Ok - is everyone insane yet. If they're not - they're going to be.

Free speech - heck - people got arrested in Michigan- wasn't it- for swearing at kids. Speak all you like - that doesn't include whatever image where-ever anyone wants - it doesn't even mean any word anyone wants where-ever anyone wants to say it. Political words. That is what is free. Sheesh.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

123. No - I don't think that is it at all.

Would you be in favor of large truck sized images of burned up Iraqis driving around town - I wouldn't. Or how about counter images of a woman dying in childbirth.

If I had to explain this truck in CT to a child - I would say the driver was a sick, insane person who liked to try to upset people.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lastliberalintexas]

125. I'm sure you know there is no such thing

In utero, it is a fetus supposedly worried about by anti-choicers. After birth, it is a baby who faces a healthcare crisis, regressive taxes and ignored by anti-choicers.

Enjoy your stay- however long it may be.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

127. they aren't babies if they are pre-born

so I can't be opposed or not opposed to something that doesn't exist.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

161. I wouldn't expect to see any medical procedure

largely documented on the side of a truck.

I think the idea is to put an image up - that people normally do not want to see like a lot of medical procedures - unless you are a doctor and used to looking at it - and try to make it out to be something that it isn't - babies - for instance.

I think the only argument to be made - is whether a fetus has a soul or not - or has the rights of a born person. There are no amounts of fetus photos that can make those arguments. They are religious and intellectual ones.

As long as children are dying at the rate of 1000 an hour - from starvation and other causes - the fact that some fetuses do not make it out alive seems to me to be of far smaller importance. And that the US is killing babies and children who are actually alive concerns me far more greatly than the fact that some women make choices that you do not approve of.

[Leopolds Ghost]

137. Most here would be in favor of such a truck...

And your somewhat paranoid idea that if something is not prohibited, everyone will start doing it, all the time, is not the sort of liberalism the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution,

nor for that matter the arbiters of ancient British common law on which our jurisprudence is based.

As for lifeandliberty, he may be a freeper... then again, he may be a person on the left who ascribes to the "culture of life" theory. I've met plenty of people on the left who feel that way, though they're not usually sheltered "fiscally conservative, social liberal" types who tend to be the most outspoken proponents of engaging conservatives in the pointless culture war that is destructive to civil liberties and ultimately destroying the poor and working class... while at the same time striving mightily to ensure their kids are raised in a perfectly controlled, homogenized environment where anyone with Tourette's Syndrome is detained and swept off the street by roving culture officers - er - neighborhood watch types.

As for me, I don't think the gov't should make something illegal just because it is considered by some or many to be unethical or immoral.

Gov't itself does plenty of things that are unethical or immoral, esp. killing.

[lastliberalintexas]

122. Not quite

I am not exactly anti-woman, since I am one myself. However, I am against restraints on free speech, even if it is vile, ugly and repugnant speech such as this. Indeed, as I've posted before, it is usually neither nice people nor nice speech for which the most ardent protection is needed.

Our civil liberties are often secured by attorneys representing rather unsavory individuals in criminal cases. But their status as criminal defendants does not mean they are any less entitled to 4th amendment protection than you and I, and it is on their behalf and more for their benefit than ours that these rights are secured. Is the 4th amendment right against warrantless seizures any less correct just because it was secured by the attorney for an accused grifter? Should the 4th only apply to people with whom we agree or whom we like? Should it only apply to nice, good- ahem- law abiding people? No, and neither should the 1st be limited in such a manner.


We have much better ways to fight the anti-choicers than by curtailing their (and in the process, our) first amendment rights.

[hayu_lol]

134. Free speech is free speech...fine so far as that goes.

The use of such materials is tacky however, show a lack of respect for the feelings of others. I would have objections to the sound system that the truck is equipped with...the noise levels that they would contribute to.

Bottom line is that free speech is just that. Either we have it, respect that, or we reject that.

[mongo]

175. No -- it's about protecting us from the fascist authoritarian left

who don't give a damn about the unintended consequences of banning speech.

The first obscenity laws in this country were used to go after Margeret Sanger and her pamplet on birth control.

But the law was written to stop the distribution of "french postcards"

Be very careful what you ask for -- you might just get it.

[NMMNG]

138. The gruesome images on that truck should be removed

They are not fit for public display.

Would the pro-gun lobby like it if gun-control advocates drove around in trucks plastered with huge pictures of people whose heads had been blown open by guns? Little kids who had been ripped apart by bullets? Not bloody likely. So why is it that they feel driving around with mangled fetuses on a truck is ok?

[Walt Starr]

147. The pictures might have met the definition of obscenity

but I don't care. I hate censorship of any speech, no matter how reprehensible, vile, disgusting, anti-American, and immoral that speech might be.

And there's no doubt about it, that truck is reprehensible, vile, disgusting, anti-American, and immoral.

[Swamp Rat]

148. BOO! to censorship!

:(

[leesa]

149. It would be interesting to see how quickly one would be arrested for

driving a truck around with giant photos of the Iraqi white phosphorous victims on it. After all, that would be pro-life message as well.

[noonwitch]

156. If I drove through MS with an anti-confederate flag sticker on my car...

I'd likely get a ticket for some made-up offense, too. At the least.

I personally think the picture on this van does probably violate some cities' decency laws.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

157. We call 'm "anti-choice"

as to not fall into the trap of using their framing of the issue (because their frame implies that we are anti-life, which we aren't).

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

160. I think it is very clear what anti/pro-choice means in the context

of abortion.

[truebrit71]

166. Sick Fucks.

How many babies have they adopted that would otherwise have been aborted I wonder? Right around ZERO I'd guess....

The obvious response would be to follow that truck everywhere it goes with a */Cheney campaign motif with pictures of ANY of the Iraqi's killed in this fabricated war....I mean, they shouldn't have a problem with it seeing as how they're so "Pro-Life" and all......:eyes:

[Qibing Zero]

182. These are the same people who have never seen...

..or that think people should never see:

-The horrors of the war they so graciously support, including the bodies of the civilians killed and the thousands burned alive by our chemical weapons
-The pictures of torture from that very war
-The human body in it's raw form (limit one, if you're lucky!)

And yet they're parading around pictures of dead fetuses.

Once again, these pitiful folks are stuck in the mentality that once a person has been able to breathe the fresh air of this world, they are automatically a 'sinner' and not even worth their own skin. 'Pro-life' = 'Callous disregard for all life, because it's doomed anyhow'




Is this really about free speech? I mean, it's okay if I put large pictures of sexual acts on the sides of a truck like that and go driving around then? Does it need to be political? I could paint 'stop the war on porn' on the side if you wish. Do you realize how fast you'd be arrested in some places if it just had a hint of nudity on it or something?

I'm not saying neither should be disallowed, just that they should be held to AT LEAST the same standard. The naked human body is infinitely more classy than what they're showing.