Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensive

ORWELL'S NIGHTMARE IS BECOMING OUR REALITY!

Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensive

Postby GFunkMoneyDog » Thu May 28, 2015 8:46 am

A New York Federal Appeals Court has ruled that "Choose Life" license plate's are Patently Offensive. Below is the legal definition of Patently Offensive.

Patently offensive is a term used in United States law regarding obscenity and the First Amendment. The phrase "patently offensive" first appeared in Roth v. United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public.


FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES NEW YORK MAY BAN ‘CHOOSE LIFE’ LICENSE PLATES

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/federal-appeals-court-rules-new-york-may-ban-choose-life-license-plates/
"The darkest souls are not those which choose to exist within the hell of the abyss, but those which choose to break free from the abyss and move silently among us." - Dr. Samuel Loomis
User avatar
GFunkMoneyDog
The Godfather
 
Posts: 20927
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby ScArEcRoW » Thu May 28, 2015 8:57 am

It is completely unconstitutional to ban speech that is merely offensive (which this isn't even offensive). Otherwise, that lunatic Westboro baptist church would be banned from virtually any place they protest.
User avatar
ScArEcRoW
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu May 28, 2015 9:17 am

GFunkMoneyDog wrote:A New York Federal Appeals Court has ruled that "Choose Life" license plate's are Patently Offensive. Below is the legal definition of Patently Offensive.

Patently offensive is a term used in United States law regarding obscenity and the First Amendment. The phrase "patently offensive" first appeared in Roth v. United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public.


FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES NEW YORK MAY BAN ‘CHOOSE LIFE’ LICENSE PLATES

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/federal-appeals-court-rules-new-york-may-ban-choose-life-license-plates/


The license plates rejected are really cute and non-offensive to me, although I'm adamantly pro-choice, I wouldn't attach a strictly "Pro-Life" message to the plates. In fact I love the way children express the wonder of life, and their smiling, happy faces reinforce that message.

On the other hand, if a mental health advocacy group proposed a license plate dipicting a girl and boy with a black eye and blue marks and some of their hair torn out with a "Choose Sanity" slogan, how many people would be offended, whom have families with mental heath issues, that are not abusive? How many people who choose not to have a family for different reasons (health, career, hereditary genes, etc.) would be offended?


This is why the DMV Commissioners have the right to reject proposed license plates. Whether they represent the Commissioners personal view or not, it can quickly get out of hand when every advocacy group wants to advocate through State government. I reject the notion of personalized, advocacy license plates of any kind. Overall, I see the cost far outweighing the benefits of status and advocacy. The entire thing began as a way for the States to make more revenue. Just one more stupid and pragmatic decision of behalf of government.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Briscoe » Thu May 28, 2015 9:34 am

we need to level the playing field and give satan an equal chance. all these churches around and you almost never see any places to worship satan. who knows, maybe we've been lied to, maybe hell is a good place to go to. it just seems to me like the common sence thing to do.
"get that son of a bitch off the field...he's fired." - donald trump
User avatar
Briscoe
HornDog
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby upallnight » Thu May 28, 2015 9:51 am

Satan is already in these churches. I see no issue with a choose life license plate, or a pro choice license plate.
upallnight
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Briscoe » Thu May 28, 2015 10:01 am

upallnight wrote:Satan is already in these churches. I see no issue with a choose life license plate, or a pro choice license plate.

I know he's already here so we should accept him and go on about our business and not think a thing about it. big deal. who cares?
"get that son of a bitch off the field...he's fired." - donald trump
User avatar
Briscoe
HornDog
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu May 28, 2015 10:53 am

upallnight wrote:Satan is already in these churches. I see no issue with a choose life license plate, or a pro choice license plate.


You're right.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Briscoe » Thu May 28, 2015 11:03 am

Cate McCalley wrote:
upallnight wrote:Satan is already in these churches. I see no issue with a choose life license plate, or a pro choice license plate.


You're right.

you're both right mcalley. life and death have an equal chance that way and it's fair and square. I used to be against death but i'm for it now.
"get that son of a bitch off the field...he's fired." - donald trump
User avatar
Briscoe
HornDog
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Angry Whiteguy » Thu May 28, 2015 11:52 am

The license plates rejected are really cute and non-offensive to me, although I'm adamantly pro-choice, I wouldn't attach a strictly "Pro-Life" message to the plates. In fact I love the way children express the wonder of life, and their smiling, happy faces reinforce that message.

On the other hand, if a mental health advocacy group proposed a license plate dipicting a girl and boy with a black eye and blue marks and some of their hair torn out with a "Choose Sanity" slogan, how many people would be offended, whom have families with mental heath issues, that are not abusive? How many people who choose not to have a family for different reasons (health, career, hereditary genes, etc.) would be offended?


This is why the DMV Commissioners have the right to reject proposed license plates. Whether they represent the Commissioners personal view or not, it can quickly get out of hand when every advocacy group wants to advocate through State government. I reject the notion of personalized, advocacy license plates of any kind. Overall, I see the cost far outweighing the benefits of status and advocacy. The entire thing began as a way for the States to make more revenue. Just one more stupid and pragmatic decision of behalf of government.


All you pro death cowards are all the same... Say it coward!!! Say what you really are, the opposite of pro life is pro death, but you cowards hide behind a squeaky clean slogan to hide your true feelings.!!! Typical liberal, even ashamed to admit that.!!!
Your government is your master!!! Resistance is illegal, and futile!!!
User avatar
Angry Whiteguy
ReSiDeNt EvIl
 
Posts: 15725
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:25 pm
Location: The Dark Side Of The Moon

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu May 28, 2015 12:37 pm

Whiteguy, your extremism would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The rule for B following A is only applicable to the English alphabet. All other constructions of B do not follow the alphabet rule that it must follow A. Just as the rule for pro-choice following the right to choose is only applicable to choice. All other constructions of that rule (i.e., that pro-life equates to pro-death) do not follow choice.

There are things worse than death. You would know that if you had ever been with anyone suffering so bad they begged for death to come quickly.

Your world is black and white. All the thousands shades of gray have no meaning or purpose for you. What you see as black, others may see as a darker or lighter shade of it. The same with what you see as white.

As you like to say about yourself "it doesn't make me (or them) wrong, just different".


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Briscoe » Thu May 28, 2015 12:53 pm

Cate McCalley wrote:Whiteguy, your extremism would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The rule for B following A is only applicable to the English alphabet. All other constructions of B do not follow the alphabet rule that it must follow A. Just as the rule for pro-choice following the right to choose is only applicable to choice. All other constructions of that rule (i.e., that pro-life equates to pro-death) do not follow choice.

There are things worse than death. You would know that if you had ever been with anyone suffering so bad they begged for death to come quickly.

Your world is black and white. All the thousands shades of gray have no meaning or purpose for you. What you see as black, others may see as a darker or lighter shade of it. The same with what you see as white.

As you like to say about yourself "it doesn't make me (or them) wrong, just different".

we are one nation under God. people that want to be different should move away.
"get that son of a bitch off the field...he's fired." - donald trump
User avatar
Briscoe
HornDog
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Briscoe » Thu May 28, 2015 1:06 pm

how do you separate two old turds?
you just start a topic on here about shit. lol
"get that son of a bitch off the field...he's fired." - donald trump
User avatar
Briscoe
HornDog
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu May 28, 2015 2:58 pm

Briscoe wrote:
Cate McCalley wrote:Whiteguy, your extremism would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The rule for B following A is only applicable to the English alphabet. All other constructions of B do not follow the alphabet rule that it must follow A. Just as the rule for pro-choice following the right to choose is only applicable to choice. All other constructions of that rule (i.e., that pro-life equates to pro-death) do not follow choice.

There are things worse than death. You would know that if you had ever been with anyone suffering so bad they begged for death to come quickly.

Your world is black and white. All the thousands shades of gray have no meaning or purpose for you. What you see as black, others may see as a darker or lighter shade of it. The same with what you see as white.

As you like to say about yourself "it doesn't make me (or them) wrong, just different".


we are one nation under God. people that want to be different should move away.


It might interest you to know The Pledge of Alligance was not written until 1892, some 116 years after The Revolutary war and The Declaration of Independence. The "under God" was added to The Pledge of Allogance in 1954, a political reaction to the spread of Communism.

The original text: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' No "under God" anywhere.

Interestingly, Francis Bellamy, the creator of the Pledge was a Baptist Minister and a Socialist. Hie expressed hope when writing the Pledge, that other countries might adopt it.

As far as history records, Bellamy never considered adding anything to the original text except "equality". But at the time he was on the states superintendents education committee, and knew the committee members were against equality for women and African Americans. So he apparently nixed that idea.

While the majority of the Founding Fathers claimed Christianity, a few did not. Among them Atheist and Deist. All of our forefathers were careful to exclude religion as the Cornerstone of a free society, on which they framed our Constitution.

Briscoe, before you tell people that hold a view different than your own they "should move away", you might want to consider that some Americans, like myself, are decendents of ancestors for more than eight generations. I don't know if yours were or not. But I do know, while you may wish anyone differing with your view of the world to "move away", you have absolutely no Constiutional or legal grounds to make it happen.

So.....wish on Brother. Wish on.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby Briscoe » Thu May 28, 2015 3:26 pm

Cate McCalley wrote:
Briscoe wrote:
Cate McCalley wrote:Whiteguy, your extremism would be funny if it weren't so sad.

The rule for B following A is only applicable to the English alphabet. All other constructions of B do not follow the alphabet rule that it must follow A. Just as the rule for pro-choice following the right to choose is only applicable to choice. All other constructions of that rule (i.e., that pro-life equates to pro-death) do not follow choice.

There are things worse than death. You would know that if you had ever been with anyone suffering so bad they begged for death to come quickly.

Your world is black and white. All the thousands shades of gray have no meaning or purpose for you. What you see as black, others may see as a darker or lighter shade of it. The same with what you see as white.

As you like to say about yourself "it doesn't make me (or them) wrong, just different".


we are one nation under God. people that want to be different should move away.


It might interest you to know The Pledge of Alligance was not written until 1892, some 116 years after The Revolutary war and The Declaration of Independence. The "under God" was added to The Pledge of Allogance in 1954, a political reaction to the spread of Communism.

The original text: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' No "under God" anywhere.

Interestingly, Francis Bellamy, the creator of the Pledge was a Baptist Minister and a Socialist. Hie expressed hope when writing the Pledge, that other countries might adopt it.

As far as history records, Bellamy never considered adding anything to the original text except "equality". But at the time he was on the states superintendents education committee, and knew the committee members were against equality for women and African Americans. So he apparently nixed that idea.

While the majority of the Founding Fathers claimed Christianity, a few did not. Among them Atheist and Deist. All of our forefathers were careful to exclude religion as the Cornerstone of a free society, on which they framed our Constitution.

Briscoe, before you tell people that hold a view different than your own they "should move away", you might want to consider that some Americans, like myself, are decendents of ancestors for more than eight generations. I don't know if yours were or not. But I do know, while you may wish anyone differing with your view of the world to "move away", you have absolutely no Constiutional or legal grounds to make it happen.

So.....wish on Brother. Wish on.

I know that I don't have the constitutional or legal right to make people do what I say and I don't wish for it, I only fantasize about it. if you think nobody can do anything about it ask the french cartoonist about it. there's to many idiots around for anybody to think there big bad government will always come to the rescue. all your faith seems to be in a scientist or a liberal politition.
"get that son of a bitch off the field...he's fired." - donald trump
User avatar
Briscoe
HornDog
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Court Bans Choose life License Plate as Patently Offensi

Postby goat47 » Thu May 28, 2015 3:37 pm

GFunkMoneyDog wrote:A New York Federal Appeals Court has ruled that "Choose Life" license plate's are Patently Offensive. Below is the legal definition of Patently Offensive.

Patently offensive is a term used in United States law regarding obscenity and the First Amendment. The phrase "patently offensive" first appeared in Roth v. United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public.


FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES NEW YORK MAY BAN ‘CHOOSE LIFE’ LICENSE PLATES

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/federal-appeals-court-rules-new-york-may-ban-choose-life-license-plates/


The definition of Patently Offensive doesn't match the courts ruling. It's a politically correct ruling, and not based on the rule of law.
goat47
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 2154
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:12 pm

Next

Return to Welcome to the United Police States of America

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests