Posted on 11/28/2007 3:25:54 PM PST by topher
>>Some people consider them globs of tissue, and not human beings... In other words, they are less than human, as Hitler felt about the Jews...<<
Gotcha, but they are human so like dead soldiers or dead concentration camp victims,dead babies should not be displayed on billboards or on the sides of a truck in public.
Unless we are prepared to allow all kinds of dead, naked bodies in advertising where kids can see Gwinnett county should not allow this truck.
Many of us are prepared. And the choice is a political one when you bring government into it Mister McCain-Feingold - and political speech is protected whether you like the message or not.
Wow Morgana! I was planning on staying out of this scrap but I just have to put in my 2 cents. Your post is one of the most irrational that I have seen on FR in a while.
>>Many of us are prepared. And the choice is a political one when you bring government into it Mister McCain-Feingold - and political speech is protected whether you like the message or not.<<
I could live with a complete lack of censorship in speech - XXX movies with no age limits, nudity and intercourse on network TV, cursing on the radio but the general public wants limits about what is freely visible by kids. And frankly too many people want limits on what adults can see and say.
Not allowing dead babies on billboards is consistent with even limited public standards.
So, what are you saying? That we should no longer show what we have already shown?
It's tough out there. Mass graves, concentration camp horrors, products of abortuaria everywhere ~ it's all good stuff ~ if it's fit to do it's fit to show, particularly to children.
This is going too far and is inappropriate. Help her with her finical needs? How dare you say that on a family forum. That is a topic I would expect to see in Penthouse magazine (if they have that anymore).
>>So, what are you saying? That we should no longer show what we have already shown?
It’s tough out there. Mass graves, concentration camp horrors, products of abortuaria everywhere ~ it’s all good stuff ~ if it’s fit to do it’s fit to show, particularly to children.<<
Nope I am saying that not allowing dead naked bodies on bulletin boards and trucks in public when people can’t help but see them is consistent with other restrictions.
We cannot really argue honestly for community standards and then say we want an exception only for our side.
Not to mention this is sure not the case I’d use for an exception... I’ve the seen the operation rescue people having pregnant women laying down in front of police horses and running out into traffic to press pictures of dead babies in people’s face - they are some of the most counter-productive people I have ever met.
“It all starts with removing the propoganda that promotes abortion,”
No it starts with remedying the root case of abortion, promiscuity.
If so you are reducing the crime of murder to something that cannot be differentiated from the degree of turgidity in an erect penis.
Sorry, I simply can't debate with anyone who seriously thinks such imputed equalities are valid.
>>Are you saying that propaganda prepared for the purpose of disuading others from murdering babies is the moral equivalent of pornography (what the “other side” produces)?<<
\
Nope, I’m talking legal standards saying that regulating this speech is consistent with other speech regulations.
You do know there's very little privately produced porn that anyone cares to watch.
Then why have the courts disagreed with you?
>>Private political speech is the equivalent of commercial pornography?
You do know there’s very little privately produced porn that anyone cares to watch.<<
Its not private if its on a billboard or the side of a truck.
It comes under the same regulations as everything else.
>>Then why have the courts disagreed with you?<<
I haven’t looked into the history of cases on this. I’d be happy to look at such cases - it certainly could be that not being a lawyer that I’m wrong. I hope not - because if you violate public decency by saying its politics then it would see they could protest pornography laws with political billboards featuring gay porn, for example. It would be political speech and would also be protected.
BTW, as a free speech absolutist I disagree with the idea of regulating commercial speech ~ but I do know what porn is, and so do you, and so does everyone else.
In fact, I used to have to determine if certain pictoral content was porn as part of my job. Once we discovered that the porn part was reflected in a mirror within the picture ~ those tricky devils!
There are no "community standards" on what constitutes porn. It's built in.
Probably the best way to go at the porn problem is to admit that it is the subsequent behavior, unbidden sexual arousal, that can turn into a public hazard. Simply ban men (and some women) from appearing in public, or on the public streets, sexually aroused. Those who use porn for purposes of self stimulation (rather than as a focus of employment) will quickly understand they've gotta' stay home next time.
Again, I’m ok with no regulations on speech.
My point is that is I have a hard time believing that something being political makes all that regulation go away.
But if there is precedent on this, I may well be wrong. I hope not or that will open the door to all kinds of speech that would be dishonestly disguised as political. Regulation should be uniform or not at all.
The right to display those images has been upheld in courts across the nation, which have also ruled that obscenity laws do not apply to aborted baby images.
WND reported on a few specfic cases over the past couple of years. As I recall, it is because this is considered political speech. That, thanks to 1973 RoevWade.
Its defnately political speech.
I’m trying to find cases.
Here is one from Georgia I’m trying to understand that involved abortion pictures in a political ad.
http://law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v46/no2/gates.html
So the Moslems have it right then. If they are offended by anything and participate in a 'public disturbance', the person who offended them is guilty of 'causing' the public disturbance, not them.
Excellent reasoning there doc.
Excellent reasoning there doc.
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to be excempt from the consequences of free speech. Speech that disturbs the peace is not protected. And it doesn't matter what religious background you have. Disturbing the peace is a crime against the state.
Like I said, the posters and billboards can be shown, as upheld by the courts. But you can't plant it in the middle of a road and block traffic, for example.
Personally, I think such posters make people hostile to the pro-life movement because of their shock value. And if the pro-life movement insists on causing public disruptions, then they are causing more harm to their own reputations than they are creating sympathy for the unborn. It does not have the desired effect. It's like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
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.