http://newslincolncounty.com/?p=27573 This is sickening. I actually drove past that very car when I dropped my sister off for work. The article states that he can't be arrested yet because he hasn't committed a traffic violation. Seriously... I know that he (apparently) hasn't broken any laws yet, but the dude's got stickers of FUCKING HEADLESS BABIES WITH THEIR FUCKING EYES CUT OUT. Obviously he's dangerous. If I were a police officer, I'd pull him over, cuff his ass, and take him back to the station, justified or not.
I know someone who got pulled over for a sticker on his car that said, "If It Ain't Pit, It Ain't Shit," and the cops made him take the "i" out of "Shit." Couldn't this be written up as a form of public obscenity?? I mean, if the much less severe offense could get someone a citation, couldn't this other guy get pulled over?
Like I said. This man has pictures of decapitated CHILDREN on his car. The car was covered in them. Free speech doesn't cover something that's incredibly offensive and disgusting. Plus he drives that car around in public, where people can see it, so he doesn't even have the argument that he never meant anybody to see it.
Actually, free speech does cover it, unless by "free" you only mean "speech that I do not find offensive," in which case you do not believe in free speech at all.
I don't like the guy, but at least his music is on a CD. If a child goes "Mommy can I have this", the parent can decide whether or not their kid can listen to it. At least that's theoretically how it's supposed to work. On the other hand, this car drives around in broad daylight, where anybody can see the nice pictures of mutilated people.
Free speech doesn't protect hate speech, nor avocation of violence. And it shouldn't. Openly displaying depictions of decapitated and mutilated children is a clear warning sign, one that should be heeded by the authorities, that what we pay them for.
Free Speech does unfortunately cover hate speech. SCOTUS determined that with the recent WBC case. Free speech, however, doesn't cover inciting violence. Under the law images of violence or the results of violence do not necessarily mean inciting violence. However that doesn't make the guy's choice in car decals any less disgusting or insane.
Yeah, if violent images alone were enough to claim "inciting violence," then there'd be no violence on TV or in movies. I'm really disturbed by the eagerness to lock someone up who has apparently committed no crime.
You know, there are some words I’ve known since I was a schoolboy: “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged
You know that free speech means protecting the speech of people who DON'T agree with what you believe, right?
You can't cover your car with pornography. There has to be a line somewhere. I'm not saying this particular case is not protected by the free speech clause, but clearly there are some things that are not.