*****WARNING: NOT SUITABLE FOR WORK*****WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONTENT*****WARNING: EVERY/ALL CONTENT ADVISORIES APPLY*****
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals holds that New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has the right to ban “Choose Life” license plates on the grounds that such a statement is “patently offensive.” If drivers purchased the plates, the purchasing price was split between the DMV and the non-profit. The Children First Foundation (CFF), an organization promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion submitted [the “Choose Life” tag design]. The DMV claimed it was simply carrying out a ban on plates concerning politically divisive topics. Judge Rosemary Pooler, a Clinton appointee, agreed with New York’s position in her majority opinion. She took this view even though she also ruled that license plates are private speech subject to First Amendment protections. Despite these protections, however, she said that so many New Yorkers could find a plate advocating an anti-abortion position ”patently offensive” that the DMV was justified in suppressing the speech.
I wrote this article once already, but due to political correctness, it was pulled. Even though I followed the rules and gave all of the appropriate warnings, it was still evidently too graphic too show. I could not let it go. If there was ever a case that was so clear-cut between GOOD VERSUS EVIL….this is it. Now if a group of militant LGBT supporters submitted a rainbow tag, not a single word would be said. “Black Lives Matter”, “My Body/My Choice”, or “Feminist United”, nothing would be said. These would never fall into the “patently offensive” category; which by the way, is usually reserved for obscenity only. Choosing Life is the most important aspect of this case, but not the only aspect.
Mz. Pooler, you need to go back to what ever online legal school you attended and get a refund. You cannot have the Constitution both ways. Either there is freedom of speech or there is not, make up your mind. Just because someone might find “choose life” offensive does not, nor will it ever deem it “patently offensive”. That is the equivalent of saying a tag that says “breath” is “patently offensive” because somebody might get offended that you are emitting CO2 when you exhale!! You, Mz. Pooler need an education on what constitutes “patently offensive” and what does not. Furthermore, basing your legal ruling on some alleged, possible situation is so patently politically correct it is sickening. Mr. Clinton should have stuck to just screwing women instead of appointing them, because you, Mz. Pooler are a fine example of how badly he sucked at that job.
Mz. Pooler, do you have a better understanding of what is “choosing life” and what is “patently offensive”?? We, as a nation, have sunk so far into the quagmire that we are drowning in the muck. When “choose life” is “patently offensive”, we are already dying on our knees and too ignorant to see we never had a chance to fire the first shot on our feet.
brandinkay 