Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: joesnuffy

It is well established that the First Amendment allows for restrictions on "time, place, and manner". I expect these troopers would have dealt the same way with an anti-war group's truck bearing graphic images of the mangled bodies of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.


5 posted on 08/05/2004 4:49:31 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GovernmentShrinker

Calling Christians "Jesus-freaks" is not a permissible time, place or manner restriction.


16 posted on 08/05/2004 5:10:17 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker

"It is well established that the First Amendment allows for restrictions on "time, place, and manner". I expect these troopers would have dealt the same way with an anti-war group's truck bearing graphic images of the mangled bodies of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq."

These cops set themselves up as judge and jury. Escorting someone to the stateline???? Apparently they didn't even give them 'til sundown.
As agents for the government would you call what these cops did "shrinkage" or "not shrinkage". Gee, let me think about this for a minute.


17 posted on 08/05/2004 5:19:02 AM PDT by Conservateacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
It is well established that the First Amendment allows for restrictions on "time, place, and manner".

None of which even remotely applies here.

18 posted on 08/05/2004 5:28:27 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I don't think that state troopers have the authority to make the call. A question about the first amendment might be made by the state's attorney general but not a couple of knuckle headed troopers.
Escorting someone to the state's border is really a questionable call. From where does that authority come?


22 posted on 08/05/2004 5:43:58 AM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker

OK, here's where I do differ from some pro-lifers.

I protest at an abortion clinic about once a month. What is happening in the clinic is an obscenity, and we need to witness to it. We need to speak up and make it known that killing is happening and it must be stopped.

But, I don't think that the graphic pictures of this obscenity, esp. the huge ones blown up to the size of a truck, must be protected as free speech.

To compare it to something else, if someone wanted to protest a sex club, they wouldn't get by posting huge signs of some of lewd stuff going on inside. (Yeah, I'm sure I'm really opening myself up for some cheap jokes here.) Again, to exercise one's free speech, one should not be unconditionally protected to scream the obscenity involved, or put it on huge graphics.

Frankly, as much as I love our 1st Amendment, I think the whole distinction between true 'speech' and all the obscenity that is in the public square has been almost completely lost. We need to get it back.

And, as a pro-lifer who prays daily for abortion to end, I do differ with other pro-lifers on this matter.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
-- Joe


47 posted on 08/09/2004 6:54:10 PM PDT by Joe Republc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson