• 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

You want to talk about license plates or the philosophy behind the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is the govt and its obligation in re public forums it controls and public speech.
 
Nope. Hence the legislative process and need to approve every word put on the plate.
Somehow no one corrected the court record that NC has about 150 different plates available.
Perhaps you should mention that to the Honorable.
 
Isn't that kind of a moot point?? Just because you may not agree with someone's behavior doesn't mean they aren't christians.. All that is to me is a denial of responsibility..

Yes, statistically speaking, Christians by far get most of the abortions.. Much of that is also a reflection of their belief that birth control is bad.. Whatever you want to call them.. Christians are on the wrong end of this arguement.. They should support birth control and planned parenthood.. The best way to prevent abortion is prevent prenancy.. There is nothing in the bible that says birth control is bad.. I fail to see what their issue with it is..

I fail to see who this "They" you were so concerned about in your earlier post where accusations were flying everywhere including, if i recall correctly, where "they" were abandoning babies on the streets. Who were these people?
 
Well it can 'imply' anything to anyone who lacks comprehension skills but in my case "Choose Life" means "Choose Life", and I'm not outraged at that point of view.
The case isn't actually about abortion. It's about what is appropriate use of a govt controlled public forum for political expression.
 
It's not the pro-life crowed that wants the plates fault there is no alternative plate that says "pro-choice."

It will be overturned.

Choose Life says nothing about Pro Choice either way. It only says Choose Life, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.
 
Choose Life says nothing about Pro Choice either way. It only says Choose Life, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

Since the plate was sponsored by a national anti-abortion group, it's pretty obvious what the intended message was.
 
Choose Life says nothing about Pro Choice either way. It only says Choose Life, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.
If you would read the ruling, you would see that the words were not considered in an abstract vacuum. They were examined in the context provided by the people who brought the slogan to the legislature, in the context of the group which received the fund from the sale of the plates.

So, the court chose to examine the slogan in the context in which the slogan actually arose and existed rather than in a removed abstract sense.

You're free to adhere to abstraction removed from the world in which these things are happening. But the court did not have that luxury.
 
The case isn't actually about abortion. It's about what is appropriate use of a govt controlled public forum for political expression.

I didn't say it was about abortion, though that's certainly the way it's being read. But whether or not it is about abortion, how could anyone be offended by the words "Choose Life". Are you offended by these words? Do you think these two words should demand such controversy or are we living in particularly sensitive times?
 
Since the plate was sponsored by a national anti-abortion group, it's pretty obvious what the intended message was.

Whether or not it was sponsored by an anti abortion group, so what? Is there anyone who is pro abortion? I don't think so. What they are for is pro choice, correct?

So within that choice is "Choose Life". Was there another who said "Choose Abortion"? I doubt it.

So whether or not you are pro life or pro choice, "Choose Life" would be a positive suggestion, wouldn't it?
 
I didn't say it was about abortion, though that's certainly the way it's being read. But whether or not it is about abortion, how could anyone be offended by the words "Choose Life". Are you offended by these words? Do you think these two words should demand such controversy or are we living in particularly sensitive times?

It's irrelevant whether or not someone has been offended. That's not how the first amendment works at all. The issue in this case is viewpoint discrimination in a government forum.
 
I didn't say it was about abortion, though that's certainly the way it's being read. But whether or not it is about abortion, how could anyone be offended by the words "Choose Life". Are you offended by these words? Do you think these two words should demand such controversy or are we living in particularly sensitive times?
Again and still, it's not about being offended. Again and still, it's not about being offended by words. Again and still, it's not about abortion.
 
Whether or not it was sponsored by an anti abortion group, so what?

So your contention that the message intended could be totally unrelated to the abortion debate is bull****.


Is there anyone who is pro abortion? I don't think so. What they are for is pro choice, correct?

So within that choice is "Choose Life". Was there another who said "Choose Abortion"? I doubt it.

If you'd read the case instead of making stuff up, you'd know that several people requested plates that said things like "respect choice" or "trust women - respect choice." They were rejected. Hence the constitutional problem.

So whether or not you are pro life or pro choice, "Choose Life" would be a positive suggestion, wouldn't it?

Only to those who like to engage in the intellectually dishonest game of ignoring the obvious political meaning of the term "choose life" as used by anti-abortion groups.
 
You obviously haven't read the opinion. You might want to do so before commenting further.
You obviously don't know that it conflicts with other appeals decisions. Perhaps it is you that needs to do some more reading.
 
Somehow no one corrected the court record that NC has about 150 different plates available.
Perhaps you should mention that to the Honorable.
Don't follow/don't see what that has to do with my comment.
 
You obviously don't know that it conflicts with other appeals decisions. Perhaps it is you that needs to do some more reading.

1) How so, and in which jurisdiction(s)?
 
Cite please.
I'd love to. Please point out the relevant cases.
1) How so, and in which jurisdiction(s)?
Here's one from the 6th:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0099p-06.pdf
“Choose Life” is Tennessee’s public message, just as “Live Free or Die” communicated New Hampshire’s individualist values and state pride. The evil in Wooley was that the automobile owners were compelled to disseminate the message; here automobile owners are not only not compelled, they have to pay extra to disseminate the message.

Looks to eventually end up in the SC, but you never know. We do know that there are currently 26 or so states with "Choose Life" plates and something like 3 for "Respect Choice" - some of that may be due to court decisions (e.g. ACLU dropped its case in Ohio after the above ruling), some to low interest in a "Respect Choice" plate. I'd be surprised if there weren't a challenge in every single state where the ACLU/Planned Parenthood believes it has a case.
 
Last edited:
You'll have to be more specific.

Edit:
Maybe you only read my quoted snippet and not the actual case?

Ooops. Yes, I was concentrating on the quote, which doesn't really get to the meat of things. I don't have time to look closely enough at the reasoning at the moment, but I'm not yet positive these are contradictory rulings, entirely. The situations are slightly different, and I'm not sure the two courts are applying the same precedential standards. And yes, I suspect that the ACLU will probably push this in every state it can think of. I'll get back to you tomorrow (or maybe later tonight) with comments.
 
You'll have to be more specific.
Edit:
Maybe you only read my quoted snippet and not the actual case?
It seems that calling it speech of the stat was already attempted and rejected.

One difference that is noted is that in the TN case the legislation was specifically about the "Choose Life" motto, while in NC case the legislation is about specialty plates in general.

I haven't finished reading everything yet.
But at this point, it seems that when the state has a specific piece of legislation for a particular message, there's a stronger case to be made that it is the state's message rather than a forum than when the state decides to allow a multitude of messages with a single piece of legislation.

Not finished yet though.
I may change my mind after I finish reading everything. We'll see.
 
Also it should be noted that these are in different circuit/districts
 
It's irrelevant whether or not someone has been offended. That's not how the first amendment works at all. The issue in this case is viewpoint discrimination in a government forum.

Who is being discriminated against by those words?
 
Back
Top Bottom