• 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

That's very clearly not the issue I spoke to.

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".
 
It says "choose" life, not "Ban abortion".
:shrug:

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?

Anyways, gotta get to work.
 
Uhh... "Support our Troops"
That is a political view.
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.
In particular, the organization referenced, supportourtroops.org, is a charity without any obvious political agenda.
About Support Our Troops®

"I Care" with a picture of dogs and cats.
Again, if there's not a political agenda involved, it may not qualify as political speech.

NRA... What about people who hate guns?
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.
I don't know what exactly the test for what is an what is not political speech is.
 
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?
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.
 
I just have to wonder what this thread would look like if a pro gay marriage license plate was ruled unconstitutional?? Anyone here think the righties would still be up and arms about it?? Or would they suddenly understand the constitution because it at point it would be working for them and not against them..

It always strikes me as odd how if they don't agree with something, they suddenly are ignorant of the constitution.. But if it is something they agree with, they will beat everyone over the head with it..

The ruling is correct.. There shouldn't be anything to disagree with..
 
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".

What views did they have that could easily fit on a license plate?
 
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.
I think you need to read a little more as I have never said any such thing.
 
It's not free speech when a State prevents equal footing.

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?
 
I just have to wonder what this thread would look like if a pro gay marriage license plate was ruled unconstitutional??

I would say that the state is not abridging the freedom of speech in any way by permitting or not permitting an optional license plate with whatever slogans people might want on them, because it isn't. At all.

Others who are literate will say the same thing.
 
They could just put a little Jesus Fish on their car and save a ton of money that they could give to adoption efforts. Just sayin, pick your battles......
 
What views did they have that could easily fit on a license plate?

I think you totally missed the point. The opposing groups offered 6 view statements that would fit on a license plate. All were refused. That is the issue in the court case. Not whether Choose Life is a valid plate or not.
 
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.
The state has created venue in which citizens can express their political opinions. Which citizens should have access to that venue?
 
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.

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.
 
What views did they have that could easily fit on a license plate?

If the words "choose life" can be put on a license plate I'm quote sure the words "pro-choice" or "Your Choice" could fit on a license plate.
 
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.
None of this negates the soundness of my post.
 
You've may never have said it directly. But you have certainly implied it with practically every post you have posted in this thread.
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.
 
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.

It seems this is one of those 'coded messages', 'dog whistle' complaints where the two words "Choose Life" are carrying a controversial message that some overly sensitive souls find offensive. They should choose to get a life themselves.
 
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.

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.

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?

And why won't they become license plate slogans anytime soon? When was the last time that you saw or heard of a license plate that said "Slavery sucks!"? Oh right...odds are...never. When such a thing occurs then you might have a point. Until then you are comparing apples to oranges.

And all speech deserves equal footing. Even the KKK are allowed to hold thier gatherings and protests and demonstrations with no legal interference from the state. (provided they get a license for such events...just like everyone else has to) The last time that happened the courts ruled in favor of the KKK because the State tried to not let them participate in a state sponsored program due to the KKK's stand on blacks. The courts ruled correctly that time, just as they ruled correctly this time.
 
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.

Which is fine and perfectly valid.

Example:

SOT.JPG


When will the "North Carolina - @#$% Our Troops in the @$# with a Rusty Pole!" license plates be coming out, lest we not abridge freedom of speech?

Afterall, if some people want "Support Our Troops" on their car, that is a political message, and the opposing message may be a minority view in North Carolina but it's just as valid from a free speech perspective, so we can't have the state endorsing one political message and not the other...

Right?

Or hey, maybe it's not a matter of running afoul of the actual text of the First Amendment. At all. And this is retarded, which means by extension, so is this judge.


In no way WHATSOEVER does the ability or lack of ability to buy a custom license plate involve the state abridging the freedom of speech of anyone. The state has to issue license plates. The standard one has no political message whatsoever.

Regardless of whatever nonstandard license plates you might want to elect, your car is your property - you can place bumper stickers to your heart's content. You can stand on top of your car and yell your views all you want to. The state is abridging nothing.



Stretching the first amendment to mean more than it actually does leads to judicial / legal lunacy like this.
 
Last edited:
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.

Not openly you haven't. But when you make posts like you did in the OP it clearly shows that your position is that you think that NC legislature did the right thing in allowing the "Choose Life" plate while denying the chance for the pro-choice group to have thier own. Otherwise you would be taking into account and not ignoring that the court did not ban NC from displaying those plates. They banned them from displaying those plates so long as they (the state) denied the pro-choice group to have thier own plate.

If North Carolina allowed the pro-choice group the ability to display thier own logo on a license plate along with the anti-abortionists stance of "Choose Life" then the court would not have ruled they way they did. Indeed it never would have made it to them as there would not have been an issue to begin with.
 
Back
Top Bottom