• 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

H. Lee White

H. Lee White

Banned
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
1,907
Reaction score
1,014
Location
The great lakes
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Judge Fox concluded, “The State’s offering of a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice plate constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.”

“This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU-NCLF.

Brook said the government cannot create an avenue to express one side of a political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with an opposing view.
Click to expand...
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?
 
How is it a victory for free speech by taking away the ability to voice a viewpoint on a license plate?
 
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...

Exactly. Expressions of free speech include opinions which may not necessarily be politically correct or popular. I'm having a difficult time believing there is even a constitutional question here.
 
lizzie said:
Exactly. Expressions of free speech include opinions which may not necessarily be politically correct or popular. I'm having a difficult time believing there is even a constitutional question here.
Click to expand...



What about the rights of those who believe in the other side of the coin of the question?
 
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...

From the article:

Brook said the government cannot create an avenue to express one side of a political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with an opposing view.
Click to expand...

The state was giving those apposed to abortion rights the chance to express their view through a state issued item, but not the other.
 
H. Lee White said:
Its pretty clear that -I- very much got -that- point.
You, on the other hand, missed -my- point.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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
 
lizzie said:
Exactly. Expressions of free speech include opinions which may not necessarily be politically correct or popular. I'm having a difficult time believing there is even a constitutional question here.
Click to expand...

But Govt. should not be involved in manipulating so called "free speech" to favor one side or another. How about if a State offered Re-elect Obama 2012 plates and not Romney ones?
 
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...

I kind of agree with them. If you are going to offer one side of a controversial issue on a license plate, you should probably be offering the other one.
 
Good. It was the proper decision, and I applaud the judge who made it. :)
 
The state could have avoided the issue by printing ONE license plate that said "F@#K the children, kill them all." Democrats would have lined up to applaud it.
 
You put whatever you want on your plates, just be the guy that complain about being pulled over all the time when you have the plates GUN DLR. It is the most run or searched license plate by law enforcement in Canada. If a police officer saw you had a NRA plate here you would be pulled over 9/10 times.
 
Redress said:
That you where unable to refute.
Click to expand...
There was nothig -to- refute -- none of what you said was meaningful or relevant.
The issue here is state support of one point of view to the exclusion of another -- as such, to that issue, it doesn't matter that slavery itself is not an issue of similar importance today.

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?
 
tech30528 said:
The state could have avoided the issue by printing ONE license plate that said "F@#K the children, kill them all." Democrats would have lined up to applaud it.
Click to expand...

And they kinda have to, considering they have the "Kids First" plate.
 
iguanaman said:
But Govt. should not be involved in manipulating so called "free speech" to favor one side or another. How about if a State offered Re-elect Obama 2012 plates and not Romney ones?
Click to expand...
Its a good bet that the ACLU would not sue over this, either.
 
I don't know that I agree with this. It probably depends, though, on whether people can get other specialty plates from private companies. I think the government is free to promote a certain ideology, as long as it doesn't prevent competing ideologies from being heard. Simply not offering a plate that adequately promotes a competing ideology is not the same as silencing it, unless the government also prohibits the use of private designs.
 
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...

Where do anhy of those offer a political view?
 
H. Lee White said:
There was nothig -to- refute -- none of what you said was meaningful or relevant.
The issue here is state support of one point of view to the exclusion of another -- as such, to that issue, it doesn't matter that slavery itself is not an issue of similar importance today.

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...

Slavery is not a political issue in this country at this time. Abortion rights are. Did or did not the state offer a chance for one group of people to offer their view on a political issue, but not another, with a state issued item? That is the issue, and the whole of the issue.
 
Redress said:
Where do anhy of those offer a political view?
Click to expand...

"I Care" supports forced sterilization of animals.
"Kids First" subsidizes children. I really put this one on there since this design is very close to the "life" plate, in that it had a picture of two kids' faces instead of two hand prints.
"Masonic Temple" supports a religion
"NRA" is political, kinda obvious there
"Support Our Troops" doesn't have the obvious "anti-war" plate.

They also offer a "Sons of the Confederacy" plate.
 
Redress said:
Slavery is not a political issue in this country at this time. Abortion rights are.
Click to expand...
As I said, this is irrelevant. Theres no "relevant at the time" provision, explicit or implicit, related to the protections afforded by the 1st amendment -- and so, anything based on this premise, so stated by you, necessarily fails.

I ask again, and, again, expect you to be honest:
Do you believe the ACLU would sue because a state offered anti-slavery plates to the exclusion of pro-slavery plates?
 
H. Lee White said:
As I said, this is irrelevant. Theres no "relevant at the time" provision, explicit or implicit, related to the protections afforded by the 1st amendment -- and so, anything based on this premise, so stated by you, necessarily fails.
Click to expand...

Can't make a court case against nothing, so it is irrelevant in the extreme. No one is making a pro nor anti slavery license plate.

I ask again, and, again, expect you 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...

No one would make an issue of it so the case would never happen.

Does any one else find it hilarious that conservatives, who are supposedly small government, are so hostile towards the ACLU, an organization which protects the rights of individuals against the state?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom