ACLU Troubled By Appeals Court Decision Allowing Anti-Choice License Plate in Tennessee
Satire image provided by Rightwing Nation
As we mentioned earlier, The ACLU are troubled by the latest decision by a U.S. appeals Court to allow “Choose Life” license plates in Tennessee.
The American Civil Liberties Union said it was troubled by a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision today allowing an anti-abortion specialty license plate in Tennessee. In promoting an anti-choice plate, while opposing a pro-choice one, the state has set up a discriminatory scheme, the ACLU said.
“We are disappointed that the court said that Tennessee can use state dollars to promote one viewpoint while silencing another,” said Julie Sternberg, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The decision permits discrimination and fails to protect free speech.”
The law in question makes a “Choose Life” license plate available to motorists for an annual fee of $35 over and above the basic costs of registering a car in the state. Fifty percent of all funds raised, after expenses, will go to a private anti-choice organization called New Life Resources. The legislature twice rejected an amendment that would have authorized a “Pro Choice” specialty plate.
I wondered what the opposite message on license plates might say. Rightwing Nation gives us a glimpse of what the other side might have in mind.
Lots more at Rightwing Nation
Email This
Posted by Jay on March 18, 2006 5:32 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, Abortion, News
Trackback URL:
- The Dread Pundit Bluto: Pirate Armada Roundup
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: Court Allows 'Choose Life' Plates
- Woman Honor Thyself: ThreeS CompanY
- Woman Honor Thyself » Blog Archive » ThreeS CompanY pinged this post.
Comments
28 Responses to “ACLU Troubled By Appeals Court Decision Allowing Anti-Choice License Plate in Tennessee”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Well, that’s a painfully misleading title. The ACLU isn’t disappointed with the decision allowing anti-choice plates, it’s disappointed with the decision to allow anti-choice plates whilst simultaneously banning pro-choice plates. Obviously completely different, and it quite honestly just makes you look like a blatant propagandist. Kinda sucks.
You might want to consider sticking to things the ACLU does that are truly as evil as you make them out to be, rather than firing blanks like this. Equality of discourse is one of the cornerstones of a democracy. Really, the Republicans and Democrats alike should be fighting stuff like this.
“specialty license plate”
Voluntary jimmy! The citizens of Tennessee are not required by law to buy them. They are available to those who ‘choose’ to buy them. You are ‘pro-choice’ are you not?
“Voluntary jimmy! The citizens of Tennessee are not required by law to buy them.”
That really doesn’t matter. It’s a matter of the state disallowing “Pro Choice” plate while simultaneously authorizing (and implicitly, if not explicitly endorsing) pro life plates.
I don’t think they should be doing that, but more importantly I was saying that the site was posting the story under a massively misleading title. That really had nothing to do with pro life/choice, whatever. It has to do with dishonest journalism. Bias is one thing, blatant dishonesty is another.
Jimmy, blah, blah, blah….
“Choose life” obviously implies that there is a choice, it only suggest which choice to make…and we only wondered what the opposite suggestion might be.
Besides, the Courts have obviously ruled differently than what you think. So sad for you.
Jimmy, you think my title is misleading? Thats funny, since it is identical to the title on the ACLU’s own website. Follow the link in the post and see for yourself. hahahh.
It sort of becomes a question of context, then. On the ACLU site it’s a bad/ incomplete title and it’s misleading here but I can hardly argue with a cut and paste.
“the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah applauded that state’s tax commission’s recent decision to, for the first time, approve personalized license plates with gay-positive messages…calling the action a win for free speech.”
“We are disappointed that the court said that Tennessee can use state dollars to promote one viewpoint while silencing another,” said Julie Sternberg, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The decision permits discrimination and fails to protect free speech.”
“The state said Thursday that a Gainesville man can keep his personalized license plate that says “ATHEIST…Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said the state’s decision to yank the license plate was “absurd,” and revealed a lack of standards.
Selective and hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?
“it’s disappointed with the decision to allow anti-choice plates whilst simultaneously banning pro-choice plates.”
At least TRY to be honest jimmy!
Pro-choice plates were not banned.
PPOA, NARAL and the other “culture of death” groups can not get enough support from their people to get their own plates.
If they applied 6 or 7 times and jumped through hoops like the “pro-life” people did, they would get their plates. But no, they do what they always do…try to get the “courts” to do it for them.
Get A-CLU!
Very good point Lobo, and I hate to say this…but it is beyond the point. However, you (perhaps inadvertantly) bring up another point.
They applaud gay-positive license plates…you can bet they would fight anti-gay ones. You can bet you would not see the same message on their website if anti-gays couldn’t get their own license plate.
Can you imagine an ACLU press release like this?
The American Civil Liberties Union said it was troubled by a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision today allowing a gay-positive specialty license plate in Tennessee.
In promoting an pro-gay plate, while opposing a anti-gay one , the state has set up a discriminatory scheme, the ACLU said.
“Selective and hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?”
I have to be honest with you and say I don’t even know what you’re arguing. Minus your assertion and the slurs, everything you quoted there comes from exactly the same standpoint. Gay-positive messages, a win for free speech. Blocking religious messages (in this case atheist), bad for free speech. Allowing one side of a debate, pro-life, while disallowing the other, bad for free speech.
All of those positions are completely consistent with each-other.
“If they applied 6 or 7 times and jumped through hoops like the “pro-life” people did, they would get their plates.”
Well, two things. First, this is the first amendment not an exercise regiment. Justice is an operation of right and wrong, not attrition. Second, “The legislature twice rejected an amendment that would have authorized a “Pro Choice” specialty plate.”, which granted isn’t 6 or 7 times, but it’s a couple.
Jimmy obviously skipped over the points I made.
“Can you imagine an ACLU press release like this?”
Now that you mention it:
“That’s the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.”
… and …
“Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech — not less — is the best revenge.”
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
I’d be curious to hear your comments on the interaction between the “Choose Life” license tag and the proposed Christian fish license plate.
My blog on why I don’t think the ACLU will lose the next round (providing the legislature passes the Christian fish tag) is up at http://www.knoxviews.com/node/572
Regards,
SC
I read your article, and I think you are probably right. I don’t think the U.S. Constitution would apply against such a license plate, as long as other religious views were not prohibited either. Same with the Tennessee Constitution, however it is more detailed on what can and can’t be done. The ACLU would have a case against this based on the precedence this one created.
I elect my representatives to advance my view in government. If my representatives win then they make the laws. The quetion is whether the plates are a free speech platform or a government speech platform. If they are government then the government can decide what is said and what is not said.
In this case the government is “selling” the plates. Should we force the Miami Dolphins to place the emblems of the Buffalo Bills on their products in the name of free speech?
kerwin,
That’s an interesting point. Obviously on the legality issue the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with you. It certainly seems to be against the spirit of open discourse and debate which the government is supposed to support, but against the law? Good question.
As for the example, though, that’s spurious. The Miami Dolphins aren’t an elected body of representatives and their team logo isn’t a highly debated national issue. They’re a private body, something that the government isn’t. At least, not yet.
A better example in that context would be whether the government would be allowed to force the Bills to cover their logo while playing in Miami. That’s STILL not such a good example, but a lot closer.
It is ubsurd to claim that the government cannot endorse one opinion over another. The government wouldn’t sell communist “Go Stalin!” license plates either, that doesn’t mean it violates the Constitution.
“That’s the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.”
No it doesn’t. Call the President and tell him you want him dead if you doubt me. We also have decency laws that prevent verbal harassment. Free speech is not “say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.”
Also, the license plate that advocates partial birth abortion is promoting an illegal practice, unless partial birth abortion is legal in Tennessee.
Hey apostle, that license plate isn’t real…it is a satire photo shop.
apostle,
Uttering death threats is a type of harassment, absolutely, and there are limits to free speech. Particularly, there are limitations on free speech that would advocate violent or unlawful acts in a situation which those ad vocations may result in immediate unlawfulness.
As for suggesting the president should get axed (literally), that’s a tricky one. If I recall, there are special laws regarding threats to the president himself. At the same time, you’re underestimating what free speech does allow under existing law and precedent. For example, it is perfectly lawful, if not particularly moral, to advocate the killing of certain individuals or entire categories of people. This isn’t a theory, I can point you at specific people and examples of such. Including a man who openly, on a radio show, advocated going to the water stations on the Mexican-American border and poisoning the water. This same man has advocated hanging judges, naming specific people.
He sure isn’t flying under the radar, either. He receives regular visits from the FBI but isn’t jailed because he’s walking the tightrope that is limitations on free speech.
It is perfectly valid and legal to suggest overthrowing the government violently, in fact. Once again, I can site examples. Whether or not that is going to stay legal is up for debate. The administration is cracking down on that kind of thing pretty hard, either for good or bad, that’s beyond the discussion I think.
Specific to your last example, advocating illegal acts, have you not seen people wearing clothing advocating marijuana use? Absolutely it is legal. Whether or not the government has to allow it in a government controlled setting like license plates however, that’s obviously still up for debate.
Don’t underestimate your first amendment rights. They’re very, very broad. Short of causing immediate harm (the physical kind, not the emotional or social) there’s almost nothing that is actually against the law.
As for the specific examples, it would be a pain in the ass go to look them up and transcribe them since they’re audio recordings. If you want to see the outer extreme of what free speech allows and if you have a stomach for VERY racist opinions, go listen to The Hal Turner Show (http://www.halturnershow.com/). The guy gets away with murder, the advocating kind
.
Don’t underestimate your first amendment rights. They’re very, very broad. Short of causing immediate harm (the physical kind, not the emotional or social) there’s almost nothing that is actually against the law.
However, the ACLU would argue that if some athiest is simply offended that a government allow people to express themselves at Christmas time, that this is enough harm to outlaw it.
Another example is in a post above. Protesting at a funeral. Your rights end when they infringe upon another person’s rights. In that case, the protesters are infringing upon the rights of those that want to assemble peacefully to mourn. And the right to assemble peacefully is a protected Constitutional right. This is the tightrope you speak of, and which this blog brings debate about. I think these people have crossed the line. Perhaps you think they are still on the tightrope?
“However, the ACLU would argue that if some athiest is simply offended that a government allow people to express themselves at Christmas time, that this is enough harm to outlaw it.”
Ahhh, that’s the government/ private body trap again. No one (sane), including the ACLU is trying to stop people from expressing themselves at Christmas. I would challenge you to find a case where the ACLU is trying to stop a private body from expressing any opinion at any time.
Stores that choose “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” do because their PR firms decide it is a good idea, not because of legal pressure. If it is because of legal pressure I would stake a great deal on the fact that the ACLU would defend them. Believe it or not the ACLU has a history of defending Christians expressing themselves as well as a history of fighting government expressing Christian beliefs. That isn’t schizophrenic. Just like everything else in life it is a matter of context. Something which often becomes more contentious then the message itself. See: my complaints at th beginning of this thread.
BUT! Stopping the government, NOT government officials, from expressing pro-Christian views at Christmas or any other time is a totally different can of worms. Politicians are absolutely allowed to express themselves to the outer extent of free speech laws as private bodies. Where they speak for the government however that advocation reaches a wall. That’s why it causes backs to go up when there is a Christian display on state property during Christmas. In most cases you won’t find any such display during Hanukkah, or any other fringe (contextually fringe) religion’s holiday. The obvious impracticality of doing so makes the safe (right?) course to disallow any religious display in an official, governmental capacity.
See the government as a referee of a game. The Ref isn’t allowed to wear either team’s jersey during a game he officiates. No one (should) complain if he does in an unofficial role, but during a game, no way.
>>The ACLU isn’t disappointed with the decision allowing anti-choice plates, it’s disappointed with the decision to allow anti-choice plates whilst simultaneously banning pro-choice plates. Obviously completely different, and it quite honestly just makes you look like a blatant propagandist. Kinda sucks.
My response got chopped off.
Just so I understand, ideas are now protected under the umbrella of civil rights? An elected legislative body can’t pass legislation expressing the political views of their constituents unless they also express the opposing view? Why this is a concern of the Anti-Civil Liberties Union is interesting. Once again, the ACLU is infringing on people’s rights and opposing the democratic process. It does kinda suck.
“As for the example, though, that’s spurious. The Miami Dolphins aren’t an elected body of representatives and their team logo isn’t a highly debated national issue.”
Then how about the governments use of campaigns to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol?
Had the ACLU won in this case, what would government warnings against tobacco and alcohol look like?
“It is perfectly valid and legal to suggest overthrowing the government violently, in fact.”
Apparently its not.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385
loboinok,
“It is perfectly valid and legal to suggest overthrowing the government violently, in fact.”
“Apparently its not.”
Interesting. Speaking specifically to my comment, I was observing legal reality in its actual execution, rather than codified law. Regardless of any discussion, I have seen and can easily reproduce a figure publicly advocating violent overthrow of the government.
This same figure has been, and continues to be confronted by law enforcement, and isn’t prosecuted under this code.
Right, wrong? I don’t know. I was referring to an actual, current case. Perhaps in the future Mr. Turner will be prosecuted for his advocation. I guess that’s a debate for those circumstances. Under the information you’ve brought to light, though, I obviously need to revoke the statement that it is perfectly legal. Apparently, it is not. Perhaps this is a code reserved for the effective collection of an anit-government militia. I honestly don’t know. Something I’m not afraid to say.
“Then how about the governments use of campaigns to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol?”
The government has an obligation in its role of regulation to publish findings regarding the health implications of the use of tobacco, alcohol and really, any other dangerous or adaptive substance. I would expect, and not argue against a similar scientific discovery which suggested that fetuses of some arbitrary age showed signs of consciousness, self-awareness or other quantifiable properties.
These kinds of declarations do not equate to overarching and sweeping statements of moral implications associated with abortion.
Regardless, as interesting and thought provoking as your statements might be, they don’t address the most simplistic comparison. Does the government reserve the right to block discussion suggesting that tobacco and alcohol are not dangerous. Also, realistically, does the government hold the right to campaign against the use of alcohol and tobacco usage? I’ll make sure to point out that publishing scientifically performed studies as to the effect of a certain thing does not in any way equal the arbitrary advocation of a principal.
Or, to put into the context of our current debate, does the government reserve the right to allow license plates which contain the phrase ‘Smoking Kills’ and simultaneously block the plates which say ‘I Luv 2 Smoke’?
I don’t think it does. But I think that’s closer to our question at hand.
The very simple answer is this the Majority in Tennessee wanted this law to be passed. So their legislature passed the law, they did what the majority in their state wanted them to do that is their job. Somewhere people forgot that it is the majority that rules not the ACLU by judical fiat. Considering the FACT that these plates are Not Mandatory and the people can choose them if they want and pay for them just like any other specialty plates around the country.
Jimmy: I accept your challenge to find cases where the ACLU have tried stopping the expression of an opinion at any time. The ACLU’s repeated attacks on the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual den leaders is a prime example. They’ve tried all the little legal “the government endorses them” loopholes they wanted, but in the end they are pissed because the Boy Scouts OPINION is that homosexuality is morally reprehensible.
Christy:
Well, that sounds good but it really isn’t the way the nation works, and for good reason. Regardless of what half the population of Tennessee wants to do they can’t contravene the Constitution. There’s really not much else to be said about that, and is why the debate here is about the Constitution and not the integrity of democracy proper.
Apostle:
Expression of an opinion by a private body. That’s the important part. These “little legal “the government endorses them” loopholes” is then entire issue. It’s also the issue of this debate, so its hardly something that can be out of hand discarded just because you don’t agree with it. Basically, all you’ve done here is bring up another disputed example of exactly what we’re already discussing and using it as undisputed fact.
So my one biggest requirement in that little “challenge” is in feverish dispute in your example. Regardless of whether or not the ACLU is ‘right’ in that case, it clearly can’t be used as an example here.