Image of Christ Removed by Police!

[Zundrah]

It was just been brought to my attention that at about 1:18-1:22 of the video you can see a hand in the window given the bird (flipping people off) as well. I have updated the post on my blog to show a still of this moment. The still is not clear, but when you play the video you can clearly see it’s a hand given the bird. It is my understanding that this hand belongs to the abortion clinic owner.

They were outside an abortion clinic? I had no idea (I had to play the video silently because my brother is watching a horror film).

 

[Mommyof02green]

They were outside an abortion clinic? I had no idea (I had to play the video silently because my brother is watching a horror film).

Yes they are outside of an abortion clinic, and the windows and images in the windows are the windows of the abortion clinic and what they (the clinic) has on display.

 

[Zundrah]

Yes they are outside of an abortion clinic, and the windows and images in the windows are the windows of the abortion clinic and what they (the clinic) has on display.

What did the poster of jesus **with his fingers up **say? Could anyone read it?

 

[Mommyof02green]

What did the poster of jesus **with his fingers up **say? Could anyone read it?

I BELIEVE it states something like “Even Jesus hates you too”. That’s what the picture that was posted said thatPREVIOUS. In that Previous picture it had only one hand flipping the bird, in the NEW picture, the picture shown in the video, it has 2 hands.

My parish priest happens to be the priest in the video and Father told me a couple of weeks ago that “the picture is back, but it now has 2 hands”. So I took that to mean it states what the first one said, but now it has 2 hands.

 

[Zundrah]

I BELIEVE it states something like “Even Jesus hates you too”. That’s what the PREVIOUS picture that was posted said that. In that Previous picture it had only one hand flipping the bird, in the NEW picture, the picture shown in the video, it has 2 hands.

My parish priest happens to be the priest in the video and Father told me a couple of weeks ago that “the picture is back, but it now has 2 hands”. So I took that to mean it states what the first one said, but now it has 2 hands.

…that is horrendous, can’t you report it to the police and have it removed?

 

[Mommyof02green]

…that is horrendous, can’t you report it to the police and have it removed?

You’ll have to play the video again when you can have sound. You’ll learn that authorities that be will not make the owner of the building remove the picture in the window. God Bless.

 

[Digitonomy]

can’t you report it to the police and have it removed?

I’m not sure how this would be dealt with under English law, but in the US we grant quite a bit of leeway for people to express themselves, especially on their own property. The type of sign may be regulated, such as if it has moving words, or if letters are too large. But the content of signs is generally free from regulation, unless it’s a threat, or as in the law cited above, if it is judged likely to disturb the peace.

Being that the picture is pretty small, and doesn’t seem to be arousing any more commotion in the neighborhood than was already present with the protesters, it’s hard to make the case that it’s in any way illegal.

 

[Zundrah]

I’m not sure how this would be dealt with under English law, but in the US we grant quite a bit of leeway for people to express themselves, especially on their own property. The type of sign may be regulated, such as if it has moving words, or if letters are too large. But the content of signs is generally free from regulation, unless it’s a threat, or as in the law cited above, if it is judged likely to disturb the peace.

Being that the picture is pretty small, and doesn’t seem to be arousing any more commotion in the neighborhood than was already present with the protesters, it’s hard to make the case that it’s in any way illegal.

Unbelievable, if that picture was of a buddah or a hindu God then suddenly they would have to remove it…

 

[Mommyof02green]

Unbelievable, if that picture was of a buddah or a hindu God then suddenly they would have to remove it…

exactly!

 

[Zundrah]

exactly!

…what’s happening to this world and its “so called” politics and human rights?

 

[Sonic]

On Oct 7th, 2009 a loving, devotional, picture of Christ that was put on display by a pro-lifer while the pro-lifer was there praying was removed by police.

1. To compound the lie, the allowance of the clinic director to dictate to citizens who are on public property what they can carry or not carry when they are acting in a civil manner makes a mockery out of our legal system. Since when do private citizens have the right to delegate to the police what they allow or no allow on public streets without filing a formal complaint? This is a lie about the law. It sends a message that the law is arbitrary and selective.

I’ve got an idea that I hope will help the pro-life movement. I suggest that such images and signs be turned into t-shirts and worn by those attending prayer rallies. It’s time to outsmart the anti-abortion crowd with new ideas. If signs can be censored, then how about our clothing? Will they censor that, too?

Let’s see the anti-abortion crowd try to use the law to have people’s clothing removed.

I’m not saying that signs should be discarded as a strategy, but it might be frustrating to have the same sign message (reproduced on the person’s t-shirt, sweatshirt, or coat) removed by the police. Combine this with several shirts, and the attempt to remove the message or image would get very frustrating. If the police want the sign, then hand it over. You’ve still got the same message printed on your t-shirt, and the only way to remove that message is to either remove the shirt or the person.

This idea comes from some shirts I own. They have “Commit for Life” printed on them, and actually came from the blood donation center where I give bood. They have nothing to do with the pro-life movement, but some people think they are pro-life shirts. Pro-life people love them, but pro-choice people sometimes glower at me for wearing them (despite the blood donation symbols on the shirts).

Spread this suggestion and develop it even further. Just let me know if you use the idea.

 

[Digitonomy]

Unbelievable, if that picture was of a buddah or a hindu God then suddenly they would have to remove it…

If that were true, it would indeed be unbelievable.

Sonic:

I’ve got an idea that I hope will help the pro-life movement. I suggest that such images and signs be turned into t-shirts and worn by those attending prayer rallies. It’s time to outsmart the anti-abortion crowd with new ideas.

Although shirts with messages are a good idea, they’re hardly a new idea. They’ve been around since at least the sixties, and are already well-known and well-used by the pro-life movement. In some situations a more professional or button-down look might be preferred, but in a lot of cases you’re exactly right, the message on the T-shirt can add to and reinforce the messages on the signs. Of course if you toss it on the lawn, the shirt can be taken away by the police exactly like the sign. If for some reason you’re forced to choose one or the other, I’d still go with a sign - the message will generally be more noticeable and easier to read than a shirt.

 

[Sonic]

Of course if you toss it on the lawn, the shirt can be taken away by the police exactly like the sign.

True… but who is going to toss their t-shirt on the lawn?

The t-shirt concept may have been around since the sixties, but I’m not trying to invent the t-shirt concept. My suggestion is to find ways to work around pro-abortionist tactics. The t-shirt states the exact same thing as the sign. If the sign is removed, the message remains. Therefore, frustrating any attempt to have signs removed. Plus, I’m asking for people to develop the suggestion further.

 

[Digitonomy]

If the sign is removed, the message remains. Therefore, frustrating any attempt to have signs removed.

While it’s easier to wear a T-shirt than to carry a sign for many hours, I would still suggest that a better way to frustrate removal of signs is simply to hold onto it.

 

[Sonic]

While it’s easier to wear a T-shirt than to carry a sign for many hours, I would still suggest that a better way to frustrate removal of signs is simply to hold onto it.

Thank you for sharing your opinions. They seem rather pointless, but thank you anyways.

 

[philialeaf]

(Another pointless comment: Not that it has any bearing but did anyone else notice that they didn’t even bother to give Jesus a left and right hand?)

Anyway, this whole situation is twisted, and I am offering my rosary tonight for the lovely prolifers, the men, women and children of Rockford, and all those hurt by abortion.

 

[MoonChild02]

Apparently, this hit the Catholic news waves some days ago: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=34597

As for what grounds you have to fight against this, since the clinic owner is claiming free speech, you can come back with this:

Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire states that “fighting words”— words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” — are prohibited and are not protected by the First Amendment.

Therefore, anytime a public sign shows someone flipping someone else off, which directly insults a person or group of people and is known to cause people to get violent, that sign is in direct violation of federal law.

It seems that by everything this clinic has done has been to get a reaction out of people. The kind of reaction it incites is violent behavior, automatically defining what they’re doing as using “fighting words”. Therefore, their signs and actions are federal offenses.

In the article from catholic.org, it’s mentioned that there is a case being put together by a lawyer at the St. Thomas More Law Center. Whenever you have new information about the case, send it there. They’re very good at what they do, and the more information you gather and send to them, the more they can help resolve the situation.

 

[Digitonomy]

Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire states that “fighting words”— words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” — are prohibited and are not protected by the First Amendment.

Therefore, anytime a public sign shows someone flipping someone else off, which directly insults a person or group of people and is known to cause people to get violent, that sign is in direct violation of federal law.

No. If you use fighting words to insult someone, you may be violating state or local law. Chaplinsky v. NH did not establish a new federal law, it simply established that the state law in question was constitutional.

MoonChild02:

It seems that by everything this clinic has done has been to get a reaction out of people. The kind of reaction it incites is violent behavior, automatically defining what they’re doing as using “fighting words”.

If there is a state or local law in effect in Rockford defining “fighting words,” that would be helpful to know. Otherwise, I think officials would have to rely on other statutes. I just reviewed all Supreme Court opinions that used the phrase “fighting words,” and all involved words, not pictures - although one discussed words printed on a T-shirt.

It’s also important to realize that Chaplinsky can’t be applied in a vacuum. Decisions since 1942 have narrowed the potential scope of Chaplinsky, and expanded the scope of expression that is firmly protected by the First Amendment. Here’s a brief overview by Wikipedia:

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969)[2], the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as “fighting words”. Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen’s wearing a jacket that said “**** the draft” did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no “personally abusive epithets”; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions — Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974) — the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the court overturned a statute prohibiting cross-burning on the grounds that the specific statute was content-based, and even worse, viewpoint-based; ie., that the statute only limited its proscription to race, religion, creed, etc. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued “any number” of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that “fighting words” could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court reversed the conviction of a KKK leader accused of advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

Of the cases I looked at, I think Texas v. Johnson, which overturned the Texas flag-burning law, comes closest to describing how the judicial system would probably look at the picture in the window.

Expression may not be prohibited [p398] on the basis that an audience that takes serious offense to the expression may disturb the peace, since the Government cannot assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but must look to the actual circumstances surrounding the expression. Johnson’s expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government’s policies also does not fall within the class of “fighting words” likely to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. This Court’s holding does not forbid a State to prevent “imminent lawless action” and, in fact, Texas has a law specifically prohibiting breaches of the peace.

 

[JReducation]

These discussions on what the owner of the clinic said and who or what the cops put into the care is fine and dandy. But what I find disturbing is the absence of plans. These protesters are our brothers and sisters and they are protesting for something right. They are being picked on, because it may or may not be legal. Whether it’s legal to take their poster, it is an immoral law.

The question is, what are we going to do to support these people? I have a few suggestions:

1. Write them and support them.
2. Write to the county on their behalf.
3. Write tot he abortion clinic on their behalf.
4. Find out who the local Respect Life office is the local diocese and ask them to support them.
5. Write to the local paper.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF