Georgia Cops Impound Anti-Abortion Billboard Truck, Jail Driver

[Elric]

Agree it was irresponsible of the law enforcement representatives to act as they did.

You are not suggesting that they should not have asked the driver to remove the images from his truck and just arrested him are you?

The northern suburbs of Georgia encompasses the general public. Not a specifically targeted segment of the population.

I never mentioned anything about specifically targeting segments 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?

On the basis that the “authority” thought is was inappropiate to display such images to the general public?

On the basis that the driver didnt care who he upset/distressed/offended with his irresponsible actions?

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.

That is your choice to take it that way.

The fact of the matter is that the driver acted without any regard to others and went to places knowing that children and others would be exposed to the graphic images on his truck.

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.

I thought that we were all equal, but apparently not.

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.

Who said anything about supporting abortion?

You dont even know what people support or what their beliefs are when you expose them to such imagery, you just wave the images around and dont care what others feel/believe/support.

And this is one of the myriad ways of showing the truth. Indicate how it is selfish please.

How it is selfish?

You dont believe that not considering other peoples feelings, beliefs, emotions ect is selfish?

You dont think that exposing children to graphic images without their parents conscent or exposing graphic images to people without giving them a choice in the matter is selfish?

 

[mapleoak]

You are not suggesting that they should not have asked the driver to remove the images from his truck and just arrested him are you?

No, I am suggesting that it was inappropriate to harass the driver of this truck.

I never mentioned anything about specifically targeting segments of the population.

But it was implied that children are being targeted. That is a discernable ‘segment’ of the population.

On the basis that the “authority” thought is was inappropiate to display such images to the general public?

On the basis that the driver didnt care who he upset/distressed/offended with his irresponsible actions?

How do you know this? The driver didn’t care who was upset with his responsible actions?

That is your choice to take it that way

That is what you are arguing, is it not? That it is inappropriate because children are harmed by them.

The fact of the matter is that the driver acted without any regard to others and went to places knowing that children and others would be exposed to the graphic images on his truck.

He went to areas where the general public would likely see his truck. For this to be called ‘irresponsible’ or wrongful behaviour, it needs to be demonstrated that children are indeed harmed by this.

I thought that we were all equal, but apparently not.

Unfortunately we are all not equal. Some don’t have an equal opportunity to be born.

You dont even know what people support or what their beliefs are when you expose them to such imagery, you just wave the images around and dont care what others feel/believe/support.

Individually, no, it is not known what a particular person believes. But a good deal of the ‘general public’ is uneducated about the reality of abortion. It is not a matter of not caring what other ‘feel/believe/support’, but rather deliberately trying to influence those that ‘feel/believe/support’ a contrary view.

How it is selfish?

You dont believe that not considering other peoples feelings, beliefs, emotions ect is selfish?

Having an opposing view and attempting to influence anothers view is not selfish. It is deliberately trying to change peoples mind.

 

[pnewton]

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.

But as a parent, I choose not to expose my child to such imagery. Anyone that tries to override my decision and expose that garbage to my child at an age I deem too young makes himself my enemy. I would have complained about the truck, or better yet, done as the police did. If the issue is sex education at an age I deem too young, I will make positive steps to stop such exposure. I am the parent. It is my choice.

See difference about pornography which was stated further up.

Which is why I did not use pornography as an example. I know that is a different issue. I was referring to vulgar language, which can also lead to an arrest under the same statute. So, what is the difference?

 

[Elric]

No, I am suggesting that it was inappropriate to harass the driver of this truck.

Well if he didnt have the graphic images on the truck, there wouldnt be any need for the harrassment.

But it was implied that children are being targeted. That is a discernable ‘segment’ of the population.

Take it how ever you want.

He went to a place knowing that there would be children there and did not give any consideration to who would view his pictures. That is wrong, plain and simple.

How do you know this? The driver didn’t care who was upset with his responsible actions?

How do I know?

Because he was driving around in a truck covered with graphic images for everyone to see.

That is what you are arguing, is it not? That it is inappropriate because children are harmed by them.

Not quite. Children could be harmed by them and others could be distressed by them.

Plus there was no attempt to get any parents conscent for their children to be exposed to such images, or any attempt to give anyone a choice in if they wanted to view such images.

He went to areas where the general public would likely see his truck. For this to be called ‘irresponsible’ or wrongful behaviour, it needs to be demonstrated that children are indeed harmed by this.

You are joking right?

I think that it already has.

Unfortunately we are all not equal. Some don’t have an equal opportunity to be born.

So to make up for that, you make others view graphic images that they may not choose to see. You put your rights (and unborns rights) above everyone elses.

That seems like a logical thing?

Individually, no, it is not known what a particular person believes.

No it is not and you dont care what they may believe.

But a good deal of the ‘general public’ is uneducated about the reality of abortion.

Maybe not, but there are other ways to educate people that dont involve forcing graphic images on them.

It is not a matter of not caring what other ‘feel/believe/support’, but rather deliberately trying to influence those that ‘feel/believe/support’ a contrary view.

So who cares what their views are, who cares who might get hurt in the process. Just so long as we can wave around graphic images.

Having an opposing view and attempting to influence anothers view is not selfish. It is deliberately trying to change peoples mind.

But you are not doing that, you are forcing others to view graphic images without any regard for if they want to or not.

There are plenty of other ways to try and influence people to support your cause without the graphic images. There are certainly more appropiate places to display such images other than shopping malls and on the side of trucks.

If you want to fight the fight, then you must take the higher path and not lower yourselves to this.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

Perhaps you could then point us to the myriad examples of Catholic churches and schools who use this particular method (displaying gory billboard sized photos of dismembered and decapitated babies to children under 7 without their parents’ permission) in their preschool and kindergarten curricula?

 

[Dale_M]

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.

The Tatton case, five years ago, pops up when “ACLU abortion” is googled. firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3727&printer-friendly=y

But if you visit the ACLU website, you won’t see prominent mention of the case. The general bent of the organization is to see “reproductive freedom” as a right to be protected.

 

[TMC]

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.

I agree that they often decline to take up first amendment cases if they don’t like the underlying message, but sometimes they do. The last time I am aware of was in 2003 when they helped fight a San Francisco law that would have prevented sidewalk counseling near abortion clinics.

In this case, if Georgia routinely enforces a ban on public display of graphic images regardless of the message being conveyed, they probably don’t have a First Amendment case. If there is no such law, or it is only selectively enforced, there may be a case. The ACLU is surprisingly decentralized, although some big cases are directed from on high, most are not. If someone affiliated with the local chapter wants to take this up they will. It really comes down to the individuals in that locality and what they want to spend their time on.

 

[TMC]

The Tatton case, five years ago, pops up when “ACLU abortion” is googled. firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3727&printer-friendly=y

But if you visit the ACLU website, you won’t see prominent mention of the case. The general bent of the organization is to see “reproductive freedom” as a right to be protected.

I agree, you won’t see them promoting these case even when they do them. I know a few people that have worked with the ACLU. Like so many organizations, it has become overly politicized. I am told that thirty years ago they were more purists that would go after anything that looked like an infringement of rights, but that today they are more conscious of the politics of a case. I don’t really know, but that’s what I hear.

 

[AgnosTheist]

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.

i find it as obscene as showing a bloody sliced penis to children.

 

[manualman]

Lets step back and look at this in a similar manner that we can judge without the interference of personal emotion (most of us, anyways).

Try this scenario. It is 1942 in Germany. Underground activists have learned what is happening in the concentration camps and tried to get the word out. Nobody believes it. Desperate, they smuggle photographs of piles of emaciated bodies lying in a mass grave and blow them up into huge posters and place them in public places with the message: It is REAL and it IS happening.

The goal of the activists is the force the regular German public to confront the reality of what is happening and stop the pretense of normalcy. Because the government removes the posters as fast as they can, they must be placed where many children can see them as well during the limited time that they can be exposed.

Who would condemn these activists? Why would we condemn them today in our country?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Try this scenario. It is 1942 in Germany. Underground activists have learned what is happening in the concentration camps and tried to get the word out. Nobody believes it. Desperate, they smuggle photographs of piles of emaciated bodies lying in a mass grave and blow them up into huge posters and place them in public places with the message: It is REAL and it IS happening.

Anything goes in a war scenario because children have already been robbed of their innocense. Kids see people being blown to bits. Kids sometimes see women being raped in front of them.

This is all about censorship in a time of peace. Not all things should be made public, no matter how true it is.

 

[estesbob]

Ill save my outrgae for those who support what the pictures represent.

Perhaps they should call it a living constitution exhibit. After all it merely shows the result of women praticing their constitutional right to choose.(to slaughter their child)

 

[mapleoak]

But as a parent, I choose not to expose my child to such imagery. Anyone that tries to override my decision and expose that garbage to my child at an age I deem too young makes himself my enemy. I would have complained about the truck, or better yet, done as the police did.

So your rights come before others?

If the issue is sex education at an age I deem too young, I will make positive steps to stop such exposure. I am the parent. It is my choice.

Yes, it is entirely up to you how and when you teach your kids sex education. Off topic.

 

[mapleoak]

This is all about censorship in a time of peace. Not all things should be made public, no matter how true it is.

Some make it very clear they want those who display the reality of abortion to be censored and made illegal.

 

[Justin75]

Other than the end, what is the difference between what this driver did and using profanity and gutter language in front of little children?

The difference is that profanity isn’t used to end evil or promote a good. These pictures are showing the ugly truth of abortion that people don’t want to face. Don’t want your children to see it, do everything you can to end abortion instead of pushing it under the rug. What is worse, seeing the images that are waking people up to this murder of babies in the womb or people being allowed to ignore the truth, peole remaing ignorant of the horror of it? Kids can handle it, their parents just need to explain it, and let them know what they are doing to end it!

 

[mapleoak]

Well if he didnt have the graphic images on the truck, there wouldnt be any need for the harrassment.

As well as there was no need for the harrassment with the images on the truck.

He went to a place knowing that there would be children there and did not give any consideration to who would view his pictures. That is wrong, plain and simple.

It is wrong how?

Not quite. Children could be harmed by them and others could be distressed by them.

Your opinion.

So to make up for that, you make others view graphic images that they may not choose to see. You put your rights (and unborns rights) above everyone elses.

No, just defending the rights of those who wish to use images. Others want to use censorship, therefore think their rights are more important.
On the other hand, most certainly the rights of the unborn to live is of much greater importance than your opinion that kids may be harmed by the images or the rights of someone to choose not to look at them.

 

[Justin75]

The right of a child to live exceeds your right to not be offended! There is no proof that these images hurt children. There is no doubt that abortion harms children, women, and society. 45,000,000 dead in the U.S. alone, and you are complaining about pictures. Pictures that prove it isn’t a glob of cells, it is a baby with hands and feet, that it is a human baby.

 

[mapleoak]

What is worse, seeing the images that are waking people up to this murder of babies in the womb or people being allowed to ignore the truth, peole remaing ignorant of the horror of it? Kids can handle it, their parents just need to explain it, and let them know what they are doing to end it!

And if a little discomfort from queesey emotions is elicited, it is a tolerable sacrifice for the plight of the unborn.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Ill save my outrgae for those who support what the pictures represent.

good idea.

for me i save my outrage for those who dont recycle.

 

[manualman]

Anything goes in a war scenario because children have already been robbed of their innocense. Kids see people being blown to bits. Kids sometimes see women being raped in front of them.

This is all about censorship in a time of peace. Not all things should be made public, no matter how true it is.

German children in 1942 had not yet mostly seen war firsthand yet. BUZZZZZ. Try again.

With a body count of 42 million plus since Roe v Wade in America ALONE, I’m not real sure you can differentiate between war and peace anymore. The war on the unborn is one of the most fatal wars in human history.