• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge finds NC "Choose Life" plate unconstitutioonal

Grant said:
What's controversial about saying "Choose Life"? Who is against the concept?
Click to expand...

Since its referring to the pro-life position on abortion, about 40-50% of the country. I just know I'd be pretty angry with the state government if they offered license plates saying pro-choice, anti-war, vote democrat, or any other political issue without offering the other side.

It really isn't that big of a deal, since it is only a license plate, but in a perfect world they wouldn't be doing it.
 
Anagram said:
Since its referring to the pro-life position on abortion, about 40-50% of the country. I just know I'd be pretty angry with the state government if they offered license plates saying pro-choice, anti-war, vote democrat, or any other political issue without offering the other side.

It really isn't that big of a deal, since it is only a license plate, but in a perfect world they wouldn't be doing it.
Click to expand...

You're right of course that it isn't all that big of a deal, I suppose, but the words themselves, "Choose Life", seem to be very positive.

Why can't we be pro choice and pro life as well?
 
Grant said:
You're right of course that it isn't all that big of a deal, I suppose, but the words themselves, "Choose Life", seem to be very positive.

Why can't we be pro choice and pro life as well?
Click to expand...

You can be pro-choice and pro-life if you just use the words themselves. That isn't what the words represent to the world though. In today's countrywide rhetoric, the terms are mutually exclusive with one believing women have the right to decide to have an abortion and the other side believing the opposite.
 
Anagram said:
You can be pro-choice and pro-life if you just use the words themselves. That isn't what the words represent to the world though. In today's countrywide rhetoric, the terms are mutually exclusive with one believing women have the right to decide to have an abortion and the other side believing the opposite.
Click to expand...

Another great Orwellian doublespeak moment. "Doublespeak is language which pretends to communicate but doesn't. It is language which makes the bad seem good, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem unattractive, or at least tolerable. It is language which avoids, shifts or denies responsibility; language which is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language which conceals or prevents thought".
 
H. Lee White said:
What's the ratiomal basis for the argument against choosing life?
Click to expand...

There might not be one. But 40-50% of the population have beliefs against the pro-life position, which the "choose-life" plate refers to. In my opinion the government should not be offering only one side of a controversial issue like that.
 
If stations must air political ads from any legal party paying for them, due to free speech, then certainly this would be free speech too.

Fox cannot choose to only show republican ads (though wise democrats probably wouldn't spend equal money there), so certainly the state is bound by at least that much accountability.

I say the judge got it wrong though, clearly the solution is to offer the alternative viewpoint on a tag, which almost no one would opt for anyway. The abortion debate is framed far more positively on the anti abortion side, so most pro choice people don't advertise it in public much. So very few people would actually put a pro choice plate on thier car.
 
BayToBay said:
It should be based on supply and demand. What amounts to campaigning is subjective. For instance, most sports teams are funded through often controversial tax referendums.
Click to expand...

Well, we should get some more profit back from those benefits. let the fans of their team pay more in a voluntary way. personally i am all for getting out of the pro-sports corruption and monopoly and i really do not care about the team owners and the prima donnas that play the game. But i will settle for the fans paying some of the expense through vanity plates the state gets revenue on. It is also not very political and it is not campaigning for some point like anti-abortion plates are.

they could do like SC. I was about to argue at the DMV because iof all the "in god we trust" license plates in SC until I saw that they actually have an "In reason we trust" Plate for any atheists who want to advertise. Not that very many people have them, but they are available for the same cost. but when you only offer one side it becomes a problem where the state is endorsing a message and giving a venue not open to the other side for the purposes of politicizing something which really should not be political at all.
 
Grant said:
Seems the issue could be easily resolved then.

Some like yourself could have "Choose Death" license plates and the less enlightened could have "Choose Life" license plates.
Click to expand...

I consider the chose death license plate simply a warning for other drivers who have chosen the option of driving stupidly around me.
 
I just can't believe the twisting and double speak being used in this thread by anti-abortion folks. You all know damn well that the phrase "Choose Life" on those plates was talking about abortion and nothing else. It did not mean "Choose Life" in regards to wars or suicide or anything else. It just refered to abortion period. It is this kind of intellectual dishonesty that turns people away from your base and it certainly is not going to turn anybody TO your base.

The judge made the right call. It is not the States right to tell people what to think and by denying 6 amendments to introduce pro-choice plates that is exactly what they were trying to do. And yes, I would be saying the same thing if the reverse situation happened.

As far as the slavery comments....:roll: Get a life. It's apples and oranges. If it has to be explained to you why it is apples and oranges then I would suggest going back to the third grade where slavery started being taught about in school history text books. And as far as the "Choose Death" comments, Pro-Choice =/= "Choose Death". That is just another example of the intellectual dishonesty happening in this thread.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I just can't believe the twisting and double speak being used in this thread by anti-abortion folks. You all know damn well that the phrase "Choose Life" on those plates was talking about abortion and nothing else.
Click to expand...
You do know that "choose life" is, necessarily, a position that recognizes that there is a choice in regards to abortion, right?
 
H. Lee White said:
Judge finds NC ‘Choose Life’ plates unconstitutional | MyFOX8.com

So.... if NC issued a “Slavery Sucks!” plate, the ACLU would sue if the state does not also offer a “Slavery Rocks!” plate?
Click to expand...

This is basically making an argument from an extreme and demonstrating a desire to completely throw common sense out the window.

Grasping onto "Slavery" as your example is no different than immedietely jumping to Nazism to make an example. Abortion and Slavery are not on equal footing in terms of their political relevancy and realistic public split.
 
Zyphlin said:
This is basically making an argument from an extreme and demonstrating a desire to completely throw common sense out the window.
Grasping onto "Slavery" as your example is no different than immedietely jumping to Nazism to make an example. Abortion and Slavery are not on equal footing in terms of their political relevancy and realistic public split.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that protected free speech is protected free speech, regardless of some subjective version of "political relevancy".
 
H. Lee White said:
You do know that "choose life" is, necessarily, a position that recognizes that there is a choice in regards to abortion, right?
Click to expand...

More intellectual dishonesty. You know that is not how "choose life" is being presented. Anti-abortionists are presenting it in the authoritive tone. Not the tone that allows actual choice.
 
digsbe said:
How is it a victory for free speech by taking away the ability to voice a viewpoint on a license plate?
Click to expand...
If I read the blurb posted in the OP correctly, the ruling said that the state has to offer venues for the expression of opposing viewpoints of every viewpoint which it allows a venue.

Affirming the government's obligation to support the voices of all the people instead of the voices of a select portion could reasonably be construed as benefiting free speech, imho.
 
H. Lee White said:
Judge finds NC ‘Choose Life’ plates unconstitutional | MyFOX8.com
So.... if NC issued a “Slavery Sucks!” plate, the ACLU would sue if the state does not also offer a “Slavery Rocks!” plate?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Iirc, it first takes some one to demonstrate that they're being harmed before courts the courts will hear a question like this.
So, if anyone is into a reality TV drama, they could talk NC into issuing the "slavery sucks" plate and then sue for the shock value of supporting slavery.

But, yes, I think that's the gist of it.
What this may mean is either that NC will stop offering plates with political messages.

But they should instead offer the possibility of more choices and with the options of customization. There's no practical reason why they couldn't. The technology is there.
Also, they have a sure monopoly on license plates. They could charge whatever they needed to keep however many bazillion designs available and for allowing for customized plates created on a per customer basis.
But I suspect the govt will lack the vision to pull that off. They probably won't think of it.
 
Redress said:
No, your point was just kinda stupid. If slavery was an issue in the US today, and the state decided to allow one viewpoint on a license plate but not the other, then and only then would you have a point. As is, your "point" fails miserably.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem to be relevant if the issue is current. Except if you're going to say that supporting changes to the Constitution to allow slavery is not a political stance.

If NC decided to allow any political statement to appear in the venue which they control--in this case, the license plate--then they have to allow that same venues to be used by citizens with opposing viewpoints. The courts haven't seemed very concerned as to whether or not the political speech they have protected was that reasonable or palatable.
 
Samhain said:
These should also be dropped based on the judge's rule, correct? I would have added the dozen or so NASCAR plates since they don't offer Dick Trickle, but I think you see the point.

ANL.JPG
KID.JPG
MAS.JPG
NRA.JPG
SOT.JPG
Click to expand...
Not sure that all of those constitute political speech.

I'd say that the NRA comes closest as it is an organization which actively engages in lobbying activities.
 
H. Lee White said:
Now tell me - and do try to be honest:
Do you believe the ACLU would sue because a state offered anti-slavery plates to the exclusion of pro-slavery plates?
Click to expand...
If they had a client who could show he had standing, why wouldn't they? They have stood up for the rights of Americans with all sorts of unsavory opinions.
 
Kal'Stang said:
More intellectual dishonesty. You know that is not how "choose life" is being presented. Anti-abortionists are presenting it in the authoritive tone. Not the tone that allows actual choice.
Click to expand...
It says "choose" life, not "Ban abortion".
:shrug:
 
digsbe said:
I can understand if they refused to allow an opposing view point, but why not just force the state to allow pro-choice license plates instead of banning pro-life ones?
Click to expand...
The state can make the choice. I doubt the court told them they couldn't choose to make the venues available to the opposing viewpoint.

I suspect the state will short-sightedly choose to stop offering anything which may be construed as political.

Though I think they should see the opportunity here as I outlined above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom