Skip to comments.No Charges Over Abortion Images in Ga. (Gwinnett County)
Posted on 12/05/2007 6:33:29 AM PST by Nextrush
LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. (AP)-A suburban Atlanta prosecutor has dropped a disorderly conduct charge against an anti-abortion activist who was arrested for driving a truck emblazoned with images of aborted fetuses....
Police had arrested Robert Dean Roethlisberger Jr. 44, of Missouri near the Mall of Georgia the day after Thanksgiving when he refused to remove images on a "Truth Truck," owned by Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group. Police, who said the images were "obscene and vulgar", also impounded the truck and removed the banners.
In an e-mail Monday to the Gwinnett Daily Post, Szabo (County Solicitor) said, "To ensure no abridgement of constitutional rights, application of this statute must neccessarily be narrow and limited...I have reviewed the evidence and law in this case and concluded the physical display of the images in question-as shocking and offensive as they are-does not constitute 'obscene and vulgar or profane language' as specifically prohibited by this statute."
Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said the decision vindicates Roethlisberger and condemns the police officer "who so aggressively violated our constitutional rights." He said the organization is considering a lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The preacher and his float here led to federal lawsuits.
His constitutional rights were violated twice according to a federal judge?
Gwinnett is in hot water on this one.
Additional background from this link:
Wasnt that the whole point of putting the images on the truck?
The first time I happened to pick up a pamphlet from the Save A Life organization, it felt like a gut punch. I understand why such graphic images are used, yet I felt it further degraded that tiny human life.
If more people were subjected to these horrific images it probably would be easier to overturn R v W
My wife got stuck in traffic with our five kids by one of these displays. She was pissed.
The truth is ugly, that is for certain.
We had those trucks driving around here a couple of years ago and an article with pictures of the truck in a local Christian weekly.
My son picked up the paper and saw the pictures, before I even knew they were in there, and asked about the “broken baby”. He, knowing nothing about abortion, knew that it was horrible.
We didn’t get into too much detail, but we had a discussion about abortion. He was sad for the baby.
The holocaust in Germany happened behind walls.
The German people pled ignorance.
But Ike made them look.
That’s my dilemma.
But I will say that attitudes like Barbara Boxer’s when she objected to graphic depictions of Partial Birth Abortion during Senate debate help to settle the issue.
I’m sort of glad graphic images are displayed if only to shake us out of lethargy about the destruction of the innocent.
The pro-abortion crowd wants to censor the pictures.
Liberal politicians in York,PA (the area where I live) went after this preacher (I admit with some public opinion on the liberals side) and came out the losers in federal court.
There are First Amendment rights and once we say this is too graphic and has to be banned then where does it stop.
Are Passion Play’s going to be graphic if they depict the crucifixion in a grisly manner.
Showing that crap to my kids is not going to get R v W overturned. It will, however, give my kids nightmares.
Some of these cable “reality”-type shows will put on all sorts of medical procedures as, I guess, some kind of “educational entertainment”. but never an abortion. Gee, I wonder why?
There are two things the modern media won’t show: The actual reality of abortion, and an articulate black conservative.
Of course it won't.
But the pictures weren't put there for your kids.
I would submit that what ultimately and utterly degrades that tiny human life is the widespread propaganda that it is not a human life at all, just a worthless clump of cells to be scraped away and washed down a garbage disposal.
If the graphic display of the sacrifice of that tiny human life to the gods of convenience and expediency changes hearts and minds such that this slaughter can be curtailed, if it influences a single pregnant teen to doubt the lies she was told by the abortion industry and spare the life of her child, then isn't it worth some inconvenience and discomfort?
You can't be serious. Don't you think driving a truck around with 10'x12' pictures on it is going to put these pictures in front of kids?
I direct you to colinhester's post for reference.
Sure...Let em kill those kids...as long as your family can hide their eyes and pretend it is not happening.
Out of sight out of mind. Huh?
Your feelings are legitimate and quite normal....
Your legitimate and responsive emotions DO NOT NEGATE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to free expression (including display)
I think/hope the Gwinnetians will have to PAY THROUGH THE NOSE....
And well they should....
If we let any government agency or entity over-rule our rights -- in spite of objectionable content-- it's only a matter of time....
Of course it may put them in front of your kids, but they weren't put there FOR your kids, they were put there to influence OTHER people.
Speaking from personal experience, many years ago I was apathetic, intellectually lazy, and indifferent to this issue. Pictures of this type were precisely the shock that I needed to start thinking about the realities of this matter and started me on the intellectual journey that led to my current unabashedly pro-life views. The pro-death, pro-abort movement relies on ignorance and suppression of the truth to keep people indifferent and confused. I recall one particularly graphic image that I'll never be able to forget, andif nothing else, that child's life was not without purpose for having changed my heart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.