Georgia Cops Impound Anti-Abortion Billboard Truck, Jail Driver

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Georgia Cops Impound Anti-Abortion Billboard Truck, Jail Driver

Atlanta, Georgia – Bob Roethlisberger was arrested and jailed over Thanksgiving weekend in a northern suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, on the charge of “Disorderly Conduct” for driving Operation Rescue’s Truth Truck bearing signs with photos of aborted babies. The Truth Truck was impounded.
Gwinnett County Police Department officers arrested Roethlisberger Saturday after telling him that signage on the Truth Truck was “vulgar and obscene.” Officers ransacked the back of the Truth Truck without a warrant and ordered Roethlisberger to change or remove the signs. When he refused, he was arrested and incarcerated for three days before being released on $1,000 bond.

more…
 
Further proof that the truth is not allowed by the Secular Relativists. :mad:
 
Having clicked on Buffalo’s link, I can say that I wouldn’t want to get stuck in traffic behind that truck. It is definitely gory.
A police supervisor told Roethlisberger that “the area was very crowded with mall shoppers and children who were exposed to the photographs,” she said. The supervisor “gave him the option to display his other anti-abortion banners without the graphic photographs,” but Roethlisberger declined.
Click to expand...
Police charged him with disorderly conduct, citing a provision that refers to “the display of obscene and vulgar images visible to persons under the age 14.”
Click to expand...
ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2007/11/27/abortiontruck_1128_web.html
 
AgnosTheist said:
c’mon, you think its ok to show those pictures to kids?
Click to expand...
Yup! They should understand what is at stake. It is amazing what they can watch on TV and through the media and computer.

This is a real life issue and important to their generation.

If they don’t like it let them close their eyes.
 
buffalo said:
Yup! They should understand what is at stake. It is amazing what they can watch on TV and through the media and computer.

This is a real life issue and important to their generation.

If they don’t like it let them close their eyes.
Click to expand...
Thats like exposing kids to pornography simply because sex is a “real life issue and important to their generation”.

Must you sink so low for the sake of your cause?
 
AgnosTheist said:
Thats like exposing kids to pornography simply because sex is a “real life issue and important to their generation”.

Must you sink so low for the sake of your cause?
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Equating sex and abortion? Sex is good it can be abused but it is good, created by God. It doesn’t need to be exposed. Abortion is evil!!! It is legal and needs to be exposed.

The message so graphically conveyed in those pictures is simply the reality of what has been legal and protected in this country for over 30 years. Those pictures represent what happens to unborn children who are aborted. Indeed it is “obscene and vulgar” – just as obscene and vulgar as what the Nazis did to the Jews, what was done to blacks in this country, and all the ugly injustices perpetrated against people throughout recent history, which have been exposed and stopped through graphic images being shown to an ignorant public.

If we say that abortion is a constitutional right, and therefore good, then we should be willing to face the truth of what an abortion looks like. It looks like a bloody, dismembered baby. We are forced to look at bloody images of things many Americans don’t agree with, like the war casualties in Iraq. Should these same Americans be protected from the bloody images of something that many of them fully support and agree with?

It doesn’t make much sense to not want to see something that is protected as a fundamental freedom. Freedom used to be a beautiful thing.

What harm comes to a child from seeing those pictures and having it explained to them by a parent? Abortion continues to happen if the public isn’t educated on the horror of it. 45,000,000 have died it’s time for it to be in the open.
 
I found the truck distasteful and would hate to be behind it. However, it was not obscene or pornographic, so I think that is a bad comparison. One would have to look at the actual statute the arrest was made under to see if this was done for the reasons stated on in the article. It would also be helpful to know if there was a complaint called in. I do not think it was a conspiracy by PP, but rather a public interest move on the part of the police.

Still, I think it was a slap to free speech and I am sure the ACLU will be rushing to his rescue and help him protect his right to free speech. :rolleyes:
 
Justin75 said:
We are forced to look at bloody images of things many Americans don’t agree with, like the war casualties in Iraq.
Click to expand...
No. We can allways change the channel. As a good parent, I would not let my kids watch pictures of war casulties. I would turn off the TV first. It is one thing to have free speech. We can not make people listen or force them to look. That violates their rights.
 
pnewton said:
No. We can allways change the channel. As a good parent, I would not let my kids watch pictures of war casulties. I would turn off the TV first. It is one thing to have free speech. We can not make people listen or force them to look. That violates their rights.
Click to expand...
You can turn the channel just as easily as you can look away from the truck, slow down, speed up and pass, choose another direction.

This is an evil that needs to be confronted. That is why they have had to resort to these trucks. Because if it isn’t infront of peoples faces they choose not to do anything about it.

As a good parent I am sure that you can explain to your child why those pictures are important and what purpose they serve.

These aren’t violent films for entertainment. They are trying to stop the murder children in the womb by the millions
 
As a 13 year old high school freshman, my biology class was given a video of an open heart surgery to watch. Nobody was aghast, nobody was traumatized, nobody protested, nobody was fired or censured. To my knowledge, things like that are routine in schools.

If the pro-aborts are right and abortion is just a routine surgery with no horrific implications, why is it disorderly conduct to show what is involved?
 
I think what happened is quite irreesponsible, it should not have been done in the first place.

Free Speech or not, you dont drive a truck with those kinds of graphic images knowingly to a place that has children there (as well as others who may be distressed by such graphic imagery), its antagonistic, thoughtless and irresponsible.

In your effort to show how compassionate you are, all you are doing is showing how callous and uncareing you are of other people and whats worse you are doing it with a complete disregard for what their beliefs/principals are.

There are other ways of showing/expressing the truth of abortion without resorting to such selfish and irresponsible behaviour.
 
Justin75 said:
You can turn the channel just as easily as you can look away from the truck, slow down, speed up and pass, choose another direction.
Click to expand...
Really? I can turn off the TV in seconds if I need to protect a child from watching something inappropriate. The public roadway is no place to take such drastic steps because one person seeks to use his car as a billboard. You can not always slow down, pass or speed up, especially in a crowded Mall. And no, I do not think it would be easy to explain decapitated fetuses to a three year old.

Other than the end, what is the difference between what this driver did and using profanity and gutter language in front of little children?
 
Freedom of Speech must be protected.
That being said, freedom of speech does not include the right to a captive audience, nor the right to break other laws for the purpose of speaking.
I don’t know whether the banners constituted “vulgar and obscene material” by the law in question. If they did, then the police only did their duty.
Though bias on their part is possible, it isn’t proved solely because the banners they objected to were anti-abortion in nature.
Also, if it is true that the police offered him the option to display other anti-abortion banners that he had in the truck, then it seems to me he was unreasonable to refuse.

To be clear: I oppose abortion completely. Abortion is murder.
That being said, the police were not “supporting abortion”. They were enforcing laws that forbid “vulgar and obscene displays”.
(Assuming they were not using this as an excuse): two wrongs don’t make a right.
 
This seems like a First Amendment violation, although I think it could be a close case depending on the local laws on graphic displays. I actually would not be a bit surprised if the ACLU took this up. All that said, I can’t support driving this kind of thing around in neighborhoods. I wouldn’t want my children traumatized by this kind of imagery. How many minds do you think it changes? I’m guessing none. If anything it hurts the movement by alienating and angering those that may be on the fence about the issue.
 
Dale_M said:
A police supervisor told Roethlisberger that “the area was very crowded with mall shoppers and children who were exposed to the photographs,”

Police charged him with disorderly conduct, citing a provision that refers to "the display of obscene and vulgar images visible to persons under the age 14."
Click to expand...
👍 1) glad to see they actually have such laws
2) glad to see them acting on it :clapping:

now if they’d just do the same for the displays at Victoria’s Secret stores :hmmm:
 
Elric said:
I think what happened is quite irreesponsible, it should not have been done in the first place.
Click to expand...
Agree it was irresponsible of the law enforcement representatives to act as they did.
Free Speech or not, you dont drive a truck with those kinds of graphic images knowingly to a place that has children there (as well as others who may be distressed by such graphic imagery), its antagonistic, thoughtless and irresponsible.
Click to expand...
The northern suburbs of Georgia encompasses the general public. Not a specifically targeted segment of the population. Free speech or not, on what basis does the authority to say “you don’t drive a truck with those kinds of graphic images knowingly to a place that has children there” come from?
The way this paragraph was worded it comes across as being a fact that children are distressed by this imagery and there may be others who may be distressed by it.
In your effort to show how compassionate you are, all you are doing is showing how callous and uncareing you are of other people and whats worse you are doing it with a complete disregard for what their beliefs/principals are.
Click to expand...
It is not an effort to show how compassionate one is, rather an attempt to raise public awareness of the reality of death in our culture that is so well hidden. That amounts to caring for the helpless unborn. It is not a disregard for what the beliefs and principles of those who support abortion are, but a total rejection of those beliefs and an attempt persuade, inform, and educate otherwise.
There are other ways of showing/expressing the truth of abortion without resorting to such selfish and irresponsible behaviour.
Click to expand...
And this is one of the myriad ways of showing the truth. Indicate how it is selfish please.
 
TMC said:
This seems like a First Amendment violation, although I think it could be a close case depending on the local laws on graphic displays. I actually would not be a bit surprised if the ACLU took this up. All that said, I can’t support driving this kind of thing around in neighborhoods. I wouldn’t want my children traumatized by this kind of imagery. How many minds do you think it changes? I’m guessing none. If anything it hurts the movement by alienating and angering those that may be on the fence about the issue.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to be cynical, but I just can’t remember the last time the ACLU took up a case supporting a pro life demonstration of fact.
 
AgnosTheist said:
Thats like exposing kids to pornography simply because sex is a “real life issue and important to their generation”.

Must you sink so low for the sake of your cause?
Click to expand...
The two are markedly different from each other. Pornography is not “real life”, sorry. Neither is it educational nor persuasive. Further, pornography is designed to incite lust (intrisically wrong); graphic trucks are designed to educate public in efforts to reduce abortion (pious intention, and the method used in an attempt to reduce abortion is not intrinsically flawed).
pnewton said:
And no, I do not think it would be easy to explain decapitated fetuses to a three year old.
Click to expand...
How a three year old handles what he encounters in life is largely influenced by the rearing methods of his parents. If it is too difficult to explain decapitated babies to a three year old, then it is also beyond the comprehension level of a three year old.
Other than the end, what is the difference between what this driver did and using profanity and gutter language in front of little children?
Click to expand...
See difference about pornography which was stated further up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top