Those attempting to claim the judge is attempting to abridge the freedom of speech are only using one eye to view this. The judge ruled the state politicians abridged that right by failing to approve a pro-choice plate.
The claim the pro-life plate could mean anything but the abortion issue is as false as the claim man rode dinosaurs.
The idea that a Love America plate must have a Hate America plate might be just what the Founders wanted as freedom of speech when writing the Constitution. First they had criticizing their government, England before breaking away. Second a majority were set against a loyalty oath, or pledge- they might see the Love America plate as just that. (later as some gained the Presidency they found themselves not so much in love with citizenry criticizing the Government, but what the hey)
Some of those apposed to the Judge's ruling opine the judge could just wave his magic gavel and create a pro-choice plate. Ummm that would be an activist judge by most 'conservative' yardsticks.
I'll bet a shiny Free State of Texas Nickel the ruling stands...
I wouldn't have a problem with a "pro-choice" or "pro-life" plate if I was a judge. Both don't infringe on any civil liberties nor does it imply government is indorsing any position (not that even that is a constitutional issue).
I think the better question to ask is who the hell would want such a slogan on their license plate considering they make something called a bumper sticker - not to mention license plate liners.
LOL. What Irony. Maybe those issues only exist on your side of the keyboard.
As an individual who knows law, I can tell you that a "pro-choice" or "pro-life" license plate doesn't violate any persons rights and it certainly doesn't endorse any idea. With that said - I have no idea why the idea was shot down beyond the fact that another idiot judge denied the pro-choice movement to have their "pro-choice" plates.
IMO, both are stupid ideas considering (as I pointed out in a previous post) that one can just buy a bumper sticker or license plate liner that says "pro-life" or "pro-choice" so what the hell is the problem?
You're free to see my disinclination to respond as a victory on your part if you wish.
I may be wrong.
The state provided a public venue for the expression of political opinion w/o providing equal access for all citizens.
I may be wrong.
I've tried to explain my position and what the correct ruling should have been as simply as I can.
A) All sides are wrong, B) the judge(s) (both of them) who turned down pro-life and pro-choice plates are wrong C) yes "pro-choice" plates were tried hence the precedent for this ruling D) I could care less about what license plates people want.
It's comical that this is even a debate or discussion considering the fact people can buy bumper stickers (or make their own) that can say or imply anything they want them to.
Hell, our country is going to hell and we're arguing about license plate slogans - despite the overlooked fact people can buy bumper stickers.
Talk about a waste of time and energy.
Your lack of ability to read is not my problem.
See above. Purchase the program and read it for yourself.I don't have to find a state law because this issue is about the constitution.. You do know that is federal law don't you?? Which trumps state?? The ruling was about the constitution and not state law..
Come on Jay.. Get with the program here..
Already responded to this line of pure derpery, and already responded in a way that renders this statement yet another ignorant and inaccurate bit of speculation on your part, and yet another example of your inability to read.Government entities are not protected under free speech.. Having said that, in this case, the free speech of the people is violated when both views of this issue are not equally voiced..
This is why it is very dangerous for the government to get involved in political propaganda..
You are just pissed off because this is an issue you agree with and you can't stand it that a ruling has been made against your views.. Well.. You conservatives claim you want to live by the constitution.. So live by it.. Nuff said..
Nowhere did I say that the people of a state have a right to license plates that have little slogans on them, of ANY kind. Neither is the state prohibited from offering them. The Constitution says nothing about this topic.
Furthermore, by offering "Support the Troops" license plates, the state is not in any way obligated to provide "**** the Troops in the @#$ With a Rusty Pole" license plates. The latter is probably a minority view in North Carolina as well, I assume, but it is a valid thought from a free speech perspective, is it not?
Already said all the above. It was already ''nuff said."
How's that crow tasting? Want some salt? Ketchup?