ACLU Praises Crushing of Free Speech

Somebody took it upon themselves to offer “Choose Life” plates in North Carolina.  The law was duly passed and the plates offered.  So some judge stepped in to smash free speech because nobody had done the same thing for pro-aborts.

Hey, look if child-murder zealots want to have equal time with a “Choose Death” license plate I’m all in favor of it.  But if they can’t get off their fat butts to do it, I see no reason why the prolife population of North Carolina has to have duct tape slapped over their mouths by a court.  Death Eaters: get your own damn plates.  Don’t take ours away.

"Will do. Re: media learning, though, the media has blown far past that kind of ..."

Gun Cult Renews Commitment to Lies ..."
"Listen to the podcast when you can. Derek Black speaks specifically into your parenthetical in ..."

Gun Cult Renews Commitment to Lies ..."
"Thanks; that was easier for me to carve out a few minutes to read. There ..."

Gun Cult Renews Commitment to Lies ..."
"Don't get too hung up on my choice of words - however you want to ..."

Gun Cult Renews Commitment to Lies ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Scott

    I love it, you always tell it like it is. Bravo!

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    The plaintiffs could have demanded that the state provide license plates reading:

    Babies in the Crosshairs . . . Boom!


    Annihilate an Infant Today!


    Sharp scalpel solve everything. Die, baby, die!

  • Pseu

    I do certainly agree with your point.

    But, as a member of the cranky-old-American segment of society, I don’t think that states should allow anyone to express themselves on license plates. No “Choose Life”, no “Save the Manatees”, no “Hooray for the Local Group of Sporting Gentlemen”, no nothing. The license plate is to identify the vehicle. You want to express yourself, get a bumper sticker.

    • In principle, I agree with you.

      But given that vanity/cause/self-expressive plates are allowed, as long as the pro-life group followed the laws and regulations in applying for it, I don’t see how it can be denied on constitutional grounds. Is there a lawyer out there who can explain the legal reasoning here?

      • Blog Goliard

        Pro-lifers are icky, they’re taking the side of the issue that cuts against existing law, and both sides in a case must be guaranteed not just equal opportunity but equal results.

        That’s really all a court needs. (No, none of this is in the Constitution, but when in the last 75 years has that bothered the Supremes?)

      • RFlaum

        Well, in fact “cause” plate designs generally aren’t allowed. Vanity plates are something else entirely — that’s the self-expression of the person who buys the plate. This is enacted by law, and is an expression of the opinion of the state government, paid for by tax dollars (the extra expense of maintaining separate presses for this extra design is very small, but not nonexistent).

        • enness

          You’re kidding, right? Here there was a substantial extra charge to get anything other than a normal, boring plate. It’s not like they can’t charge to reimburse for the expense.

        • enness

          So charge people to reimburse the expense…come on. Anything other than a normal, boring plate is going to cost extra. What’s a little more?

    • Blog Goliard

      Yes. This.

      One of the thousand steps we must take, in the urgent task of expunging narcissism from our society, is to teach people that not every single thing they touch in life is a vehicle for self-expression. (Much less for political self-expression.)

      Also, here in Georgia, they are in fact gearing up to push for a “pro-choice” license plate again when the Legislature starts up next month. This was entirely foreseeable…and one reason why I wasn’t in favor of the “pro-life” license plate either.

      (I’m also not in favor of this part of the South calling them “tags”; and only giving you a single one for the back of the car, leaving you free to “express yourself” on the front bumper as well, even to the point of putting other states’ and even countries’ plates there…but those are separate issues.)

  • Bill

    Why not? You pay a healthy amount of scratch for the damn things. Might as well get something out of it.

    • Bob

      Absotively posilutely, Pseu. End the politicization of license plates. Bill, last month someone hit my car. Caused significant damage. Then drove off. Fortunately a neighbor got their license plate.
      What I’m going to “get out of it” is justice. Hopefully, society gets one irresponsible nut off the road, for a while at least. The purpose of license plates is to apply traffic laws. There are no other legitimate purposes for license plates.

  • Pseu

    Because a license plate is a gummint-issued tag meant to identify a vehicle. Expressing oneself through the license plate is dragging the gummint into your expression. That’s messy. Would you want the gummint issuing a “Praise [whatever awful thing you can think of]!” license plate? I wouldn’t. Would you want the gummint deciding where to draw the line between “things that are okay to express on a license plate” and “things that are not okay to express on a license plate”? I also wouldn’t like that.

    So, better off just not going down that road (ha!) at all. Get a bumper sticker, put whatever you want on it, stick it right there next to the boring old non-expressive state-issued license plate.

  • Bob

    Also, Mark, no offense buddy, but it would be awfully sweet if you would actually read the articles you link before getting on your high horse. It is
    It says right here:

    “During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as “Trust Women. Respect Choice,” the affiliate reported.”

    So, the notion that there’s no pro-choice alternative because “child-murder zealots” failed to “get off their butts” is simply false. On the contrary, the redneck knuckle-draggers, deploying the power of the state, granted one group the right to use a state resource to proffer its opinion while denying another. Simply because the redneck knuckle-draggers didn’t agree with other group’s opinion. Crap like that is THE REASON we have a 1st Amendment.
    But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?

    • RFlaum

      You’re not helping, Bob. Your point is valid, but you make it in a way that almost guarantees it will not be taken seriously.

    • As long as they changed it to “Choose Death”, “Small Human Beings Must Die So My Unfettered Pleasure Can Continue”, or “Killing Babies: Thank God It’s Legal!” so that truth in advertising laws are followed, I don’t see the problem.

  • Michelle

    I had the same thought…it not the state that came up with the idea of the plate and pro aborts are free to come up with their own…..

  • Glenn

    Sounds like the North Carolina legislature screwed up by not letting the alternative license plate be offered:

    “During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as “Trust Women. Respect Choice,” the affiliate reported.”

    That seems to be what the judge is grabbing onto in order to squash the “Choose Life” plates.

    • Glenn

      Oops, my computer hadn’t updated the Comments section. Didn’t mean to rehash what had already been pointed out.

  • MarylandBill

    The whole notion of “Trust women”, suggests that somehow humans routinely make good moral choices. If that was the case, then we would have no need of many of the laws that regulate human behavior.

    • Bob

      The whole notion that we require many laws that regulate human behavior suggests somehow that lawmakers routinely make good moral choices.

    • keddaw

      You may want laws to regulate human behaviour, but I prefer to trust people and have laws to punish those that cause harm.

      • RFlaum

        Define “harm”.

      • RFlaum

        Also: there may be acts that are likely to cause unintentional harm.

      • I agree, and causing another human being’s death certainly qualifies as “harm.” I’m glad we are in agreement.

        • RFlaum

          Well, if we define “harm” as “violate the rights of”, then it’s only harm if that human doesn’t want to die.

          • Marion (Mael Muire)

            if we define “harm” as “violate the rights of”, then it’s only harm if that human doesn’t want to die.

            That would be a liberal, secularist definition of harm to another person.

            But not a Catholic definition of harm to another person.

            A Catholic definition of harm as well as good would include references to God; to the other person’s dignity as a child of God; to the other person’s attainment of the highest good, which is the love of God in this life and the next; to the other’s God-given right to freedom ordered to the search for the good; to the requirement that in our dealing with others, we ourselves exercise the virtues of justice and charity.

          • enness

            Knowing that would require some sort of Fetus Whisperer.

  • Obpoet

    To be fair, the legislature would not approve several suggested pro-abortion slogans. I think they were too watered down to pass. They should have approved something so a charge of inequality could not be leveled. It did give an air of unfairness. They could have been smarter, but hey, they were politicians.