- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That's very clearly not the issue I spoke to.
It says "choose" life, not "Ban abortion".
:shrug:
While the slogan has been used by politicians, I don't think that's enough for it to qualify as political speech when it comes from someone else.Uhh... "Support our Troops"
That is a political view.
Again, if there's not a political agenda involved, it may not qualify as political speech."I Care" with a picture of dogs and cats.
Because the NRA is actively involved with government lobbying, they may or may not fall under the political speech category. The NRA is involved with a number of non-political activities as well.NRA... What about people who hate guns?
Advocating that you make a particular choice does not deny the existence of other choices, or present the idea that there shouldbe no other choices.What it says and how it is meant are not always the same thing. You do know the difference between saying something authoritively vs actual allowing of choice don't you?
But that is what is at the heart of the issue. You say that the courts are not allowing free speech because they wouldn't let NC distribute those "Choose Life" plates. While totally ignoring that they only ruled that way because NC denied the same ability to the opposing faction. The courts did not rule that NC couldn't provide the Choose Life plates. They ruled that NC could not provide the Choose Life plates if they denied the ability for the pro-choice side to have plates that represented thier views. So long as NC denies the free speech of the pro-choice side then they must deny the speech of the anti-abortion side. The same arguement is used whenever religion comes up. If the State allows one form of speech then they cannot deny the opposing view point of speech.
That is what it means to have free speech. Allowing every view point to be expressed. You do not have free speech when you allow one side to announce thier views but deny the other side to do the same. You have to take the good along with the bad in actual, real, free speech. Free speech is not "you can only say what I want you to say and must shut up on anything else".
I think you need to read a little more as I have never said any such thing.But that is what is at the heart of the issue. You say that the courts are not allowing free speech because they wouldn't let NC distribute those "Choose Life" plates. While totally ignoring that they only ruled that way because NC denied the same ability to the opposing faction.
It's not free speech when a State prevents equal footing.
I just have to wonder what this thread would look like if a pro gay marriage license plate was ruled unconstitutional??
What views did they have that could easily fit on a license plate?
The state has created venue in which citizens can express their political opinions. Which citizens should have access to that venue?a) Yes, it is. An optional license plate that costs you extra money is not the State abridging the freedom of speech in any way.
Others whose heart beats and whose lung inhale and exhale and whose stomach digests will say the same thing.Others who are literate will say the same thing.
Advocating that you make a particular choice does not deny the existence of other choices, or present the idea that there shouldbe no other choices.
What views did they have that could easily fit on a license plate?
None of this negates the soundness of my post.You call putting "choose life" on a state issued license plate "advocating", I call it using authority to push your own ideals while denying others the same ability. That is authoritorian.
I think you need to read a little more as I have never said any such thing.
I'm sorry that you so very clearly fail to understand what I've did - but then, there's not a lot I can do about that.You've may never have said it directly. But you have certainly implied it with practically every post you have posted in this thread.
From the article:
The state was giving those apposed to abortion rights the chance to express their view through a state issued item, but not the other.
a) Yes, it is. An optional license plate that costs you extra money is not the State abridging the freedom of speech in any way.
b) It isn't as though the position deserves equal footing. As others have cited "Slavery - So Awesome!" or "Domestic Violence Rocks!" are unlikely to become license plate slogans anytime soon. Oh no, people don't have freedom of speech?
None of this negates the soundness of my post.
You're right. It's not. The abridging of the freedom of speech came when the state refused 6 times to allow people to display the opposing view point on those state issued license plates.
It is sound, period - soundess is not a matter of opinion.It is only sound to you.
I'm sorry that you so very clearly fail to understand what I've did - but then, there's not a lot I can do about that.
I have not once disagreed with the idea that a state cannot make available a "position x" license plate to the exclusion of a "position -x" license plate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?