Now THAT would have been something to see in the picture thread!You can't cover your car with pornography.
I learned that one the hard way.
Now THAT would have been something to see in the picture thread!You can't cover your car with pornography.
I learned that one the hard way.
The only thing I'm shocked about is what people here get shocked about, day after day. And, distressingly, the number of people who understand law so poorly they think carving out exceptions to rights for cases that bruise their tender minds is a good idea.And at the end of the day, it's his choice. So why are people pooping their pampers over this?
boobatuba said: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.
That instantly made me think of this:I also strongly suspect this is cartoon violence, and not realist art or photos of effects done by John Carpenter's people. That makes a pretty big difference. And if this is so offensive, why does no one bat an eye at skulls. Are people not aware of where skulls from? Hint: it isn't alive people.
And then you would be discharged from the force, brought up on criminal charges and sued by the guy who you falsely arrested.If I were a police officer, I'd pull him over, cuff his ass, and take him back to the station, justified or not.
Depends on how you define pornography. There are plenty of painted vans around that some people consider pornographic. Hell, there was artwork on some WWII plans that some people consider pornographic.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.
Hell, it sounds to me like this guy is just the highway equivalent of an internet troll. He’s deliberately being outrageous, trying to get attention in his childish little way. The best thing to do is ignore him.
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 guess free speech doesn't mean much to you, huh?
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.
I'm the only one wondering how headless babies can have their eyes cut out?the dude's got stickers of FUCKING HEADLESS BABIES WITH THEIR FUCKING EYES CUT OUT.
Well, thankfully not.Also, if the babies are headless, how do you know if their eyes have been cut out? Are the heads just sitting there? Inquiring minds.
That sort of thing is what many, if not most Americans would define as the very essence of a “nanny state.” No, thanks.. . . If I had stickers like that on my car it would equal a 48 hour psych-hold at a bare minimum.
I got fined for a bloody sticker that said: "If you're reading this, you're losing." The guy claimed it incited reckless driving...
May I use that as a quote line?I mean, people have driving around with Calvin pissing on things for decades and how many trucks these days have scrotums?
That instantly made me think of this:I also strongly suspect this is cartoon violence, and not realist art or photos of effects done by John Carpenter's people. That makes a pretty big difference. And if this is so offensive, why does no one bat an eye at skulls. Are people not aware of where skulls from? Hint: it isn't alive people.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZ8EkK3eWY[/yt]
I'm the only one wondering how headless babies can have their eyes cut out?the dude's got stickers of FUCKING HEADLESS BABIES WITH THEIR FUCKING EYES CUT OUT.
I would say this is a definite reason to keep a close eye on this guy and assess whether he is a threat or not, and perhaps needs psychiatric help, but shouldn't be a reason to arrest him on its own.
Sadly life is replete with examples of people who are clearly disturbed slipping through the net and going on to commit terrible acts of violence, I don't think I need to remind people of the most recent high profile case of clear danger signals being ignored leading to tragic consequences.
Doing this alone doesn't make him insane, there are many reasons why sane people do things that appear crazy, but it's certainly reason to be concerned. The authorities should at least approach him to attempt to assess his mental state.
That sort of thing is what many, if not most Americans would define as the very essence of a “nanny state.” No, thanks.I got fined for a bloody sticker that said: "If you're reading this, you're losing." The guy claimed it incited reckless driving...
Right. Serial murderers generally don’t advertise their intentions. They’re often the quiet, shy, unassuming neighbor who keeps to himself — and has a dozen bodies buried in his basement.Actual serial killers? Tend to be sociopaths who are capable of risk evaluation. Jeff Dahmer didn't wear a T-shirt that said "I'm a humanitarian" with a picture of a guy roasting over a spit.
I'm only pointing out that there is a line, not attempting to define it. Clearly, you can't have a 36" x 24" blown-up photograph of full frontal nudity mounted on the side of the car just like your buddy in the passenger seat can't hang it out the window "au naturale." You probably wouldn't be allowed to drive around with a cartoon featuring child pornography on your hood despite the SCOTUS ruling that electronic versions of that are acceptable. There is a line somewhere. Agree?Depends on how you define pornography. There are plenty of painted vans around that some people consider pornographic. Hell, there was artwork on some WWII plans that some people consider pornographic.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.![]()
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 guess free speech doesn't mean much to you, huh?
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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.