By snoadmin
A funny thing happened on the way to the First Amendment; everybody claimed it as a birthright, but only a few were willing to share it with fellow citizens.
During the two-day Genocide Awareness Project at Cal State Long Beach earlier this week, anti-abortionists practiced free speech in a way that pissed off pro-choice advocates. They used graphic images that many thought were manipulated in Photoshop, and the group’s campaign was highly polished and undoubtedly expensive.
The pro-lifers insisted that an affidavit from the photographer was proof enough to validate the mega-posters at their enormous campus display. The pro-choice groups mobilized a counter-offensive and showed up with hand-painted signs of their own, reading “Keep your Rosaries off my ovaries” and “Keep your hands off my Vagina.”
Both groups claimed the other was violating its free speech rights. The important part was that the police who set up a demarcation zone were actually protecting free speech, with some limitations, by ensuring emotions didn’t escalate to a point of disturbance — to make sure nobody started throwing license plates at each other. Huh?
That part might seem farfetched, but the First Amendment, continuously the premiere topic in the U. S. Supreme Court, is under attack about what can be printed on specialty license plates.
The case currently headed for the high court’s docket asks for a decision on whether or not Illinois can be forced to issue plates that read “Choose Life.” A pro-life group, Choose Life Illinois, claims the state violated the First Amendment by not issuing the plates.
Illinois isn’t the first state to face lawsuits over refusing the “Choose Life” rectangular pieces of metal. California, New Jersey, New York, Missouri and Arizona have had legal battles for refusing the messages on the backs of cars. At least five Southern states have been taken to task for approving the plates. In all, 19 states currently allow them.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Illinois, saying they are, “mobile billboards” meant to appeal to like-minded people and should be protected speech.
This isn’t the first time free speech on license plates has been a Supreme Court issue. According the The New York Times, the court heard a similar case in 1977, when a New Hampshire man objected to his state’s plates with the motto “Live Free or Die.” The court simply told George Maynard he didn’t have to drive.
Maynard told the court he didn’t like his choices, claiming his objection to the plates was his expression of free speech and that the state violated it. He told the justices he would rather “choose life, even if it meant living in bondage.”
So here we are, back at the fight between women’s rights groups, anti-abortionists, free speech and the rules of engagement.
When it comes to women’s rights, we support free choice. When it comes to free speech, we support both groups. When it comes to license plate battles, we “Choose Freedom,” even if it means others might disagree — and as long as nobody sharpens the edges and starts flinging them angrily at people with different viewpoints.
Please straighten out your facts before making such a sweeping report about the protest. I am in the feminist group that initiated the pro-choice / counter protest, and we did not at all claim that the anti-choice group was violating our free speech. Do you have quotes on this? If you happen to have the chance to read it, I am quoted in the Daily49er article that came out on that Tuesday, and I am quoted as saying that they (the anti-choice activists) have every right to be there. I also emphasized this in the online video interview when I was asked about how we felt about this anti-choice group being there, and I never once said anything about them violating our free speech (but it seems this and 80% of everything else I said was edited out). I understand that making assumptions about each group’s stance may make for an easy and shallow comparison for an article, but it is inappropriate when this inaccurate information is falsely aligned with a group’s stance. On another note, I do not believe we had a sign that said “Keep your hands off my vagina;” we had “get your rosaries off my ovaries” and “keep your religion out of my uterus,” among many, many others.
Aside from the inaccurate information, we appreciate the D49er for covering this demonstration and counter-demonstration.
States should authorize any plate that is proposed. Then they should establish a large number of plates that must be sold before the plates are made (applying the number to all plates). Some plates might not sell enough to be issued. That would weed out many plates, while still protecting free speech.
The states that are under fire legally for either allowing or disallowing one message or another on their license plates are the states that started having messages on them to begin with. Once a state opens the opportunity for certain groups to put their messages on state issued license plates it offers the opposition a chance to disagree by trying to shut up certain messages or get their messages on the license plates. Personally, I think license plates should be used for easy identification of an automobile and to determine whether or not its owner has paid the necessary fees to operate that automobile within the jurisdiction. Limiting license plates to such mundane usages would undoubtedly reduce the burden on our court systems and save our state governments a respectab le amount of money in avoided legal costs.