Gory abortion banners on truck land driver in jail

[EveningStar]

Andria Simmons
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 27, 2007

On the busiest shopping day of the year at the biggest mall in the state, bargain hunters were met with a startling sight.

They glanced up around the Mall of Georgia in Buford the day after Thanksgiving to see three banners with images of aborted fetuses. The banners were attached to a truck driven by an employee of Operation Rescue, a national organization that opposes abortion...
More (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2007/11/27/abortiontruck_1128_web.html)

[Maggie_T]

After someone called police to report "gory" images ...

Oh, so the banners are NOT protected by the 1st amendment ... :question:

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

The images are unlawful yet the act is not? Utter BS. I remember posting a similar article about an abortion clinic in the UK years ago. Someone there had sent images of aborted children to the clinic and the employees were outraged. :rolleyes:

They not only saw, but performed the act which produced the gore with their own hands, everyday. Yet the sight of such offends them?

Simply put, people putting up such images is bad for their business, thus the reason they want them censored. The death-profiteers work hard to keep the reality of the "choice" movement hidden from both their clientele and the general public. How dare anyone make their customers face the reality that their "choice" is a very gory and disgusting one!

*Insert*
Oh, so the banners are NOT protected by the 1st amendment ... :question:
Come now Maggie. Get with the times. We all know the 1st was only designed to protect things like fag porn and anti-American propaganda. Since when has "hate" been protected speech? These banners constitute hate toward abortionists, and as such are not allowed...

yet somehow stabbing babies in the brain and throwing them into trash cans is not "hate." :question:

[Maggie_T]

:thumb:

Even that part that "chastizes" me. ;)

[Rhino]

The images are unlawful yet the act is not?Not really a good argument. Many images of sex are unlawful, but the act is not....thank GOD!!!!! :rotflmbo:

[EveningStar]

Oh, so the banners are NOT protected by the 1st amendment ... :question:
This is not about free speech but rather about what should be displayed publicly.

[Politicalmom]

Gwinnet County PD is getting an earful from me tomorrow.

That would NOT happen in my area of GA.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Gaia forbid people know EXACTLY what goes on in an abortuary. :rolleyes: They can show EQUALLY graphic images on medical shows, the CSI series, but to put still images of a "legal" procedure isn't visually appropriate. Not to mention the window displays in the out-facing establishments in the Mall such as Victoria's Secret. I was in the Mall black Friday, and the window display was practically pornographic!

Go figure. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon8.gif

[DesertFox]

This is not about free speech but rather about what should be displayed publicly.Public "expression" is precisely what the 1A is about.

[Maggie_T]

This is not about free speech but rather about what should be displayed publicly.

Sorry. For me, it's the same thing.

[Maggie_T]

Public "expression" is precisely what the 1A is about.

Exactly. And don't tell us "The 1st amendment was created solely to protect those who criticize the government." That is only technically true these days. Today, the 1st amendment protects free speech, in all its myriad varieties. Even the ACLU agrees ... selectively.

[CzechPrince]

That's ridiculous. It's free expression. Our founders are rolling in their graves.

[Rhino]

Public "expression" is precisely what the 1A is about.Some people say the same thing about porn. They're saying this is an issue of displaying something publicly that is oscene or vulgar. I'm not saying I agree with their definition, but the 1A does not protect the public display of something that is vulgar or obscene. I don't think this qualifies as that. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

[HarvickFan29]

This is not about free speech but rather about what should be displayed publicly.

Could you please explain the difference?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

No Charges Over Abortion Images in Ga. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TAQPIO1&show_article=1)

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. (AP) - A suburban Atlanta prosecutor has dropped a disorderly conduct charge against an anti-abortion activist who was arrested for driving a truck emblazoned with images of aborted fetuses (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=).

Gwinnett County Solicitor Rosanna Szabo said the display of the images, "as shocking and offensive as they are," didn't violate the law.

[Reagan Knight]

The First Amendment has always had certain restrictions for obscenity (however many of these are actually modified by the States, so that obscenity in one place may not be so somewhere else) and time and place restrictions, which is for example the requiring of a permit to protest on a sidewalk, or the fact that a protestor can't picket on your front lawn because its private property. So at that mall, if its private property there's issues there along with a host of others.

That being said, it's funny how the ACLU hasn't jumped on this to defend the poor truck driver.

[Air Force Guy]

This is not about free speech but rather about what should be displayed publicly.Dogs have more worth than human babies.

Witness the PETA people that were protected when they held up signs with mangled dogs after dogfighting.

[ThomasMore]

It sounds like the Georgia authorities came down on the correct side of this, protecting the "Truth Trucks'" right to show the pictures.

Good on them.

Lest everyone forget, what do you all think the TRUE purpose of the First Amendment freedom of speech is?

Do you think the founders thought it Constitutionally important to the republic to protect pornography, obscene "art," false advertising, or libel?

Or do you think that the founders wanted to create a very large, safe sphere for free political speech?

The Larry Flynts and ACLUs of the world hitched their wagon onto "freedom of expression," to justify and protect the peddling of smut. They were successful because some judges and many in the public either couldn't keep the context of the right in mind, or because they were sympathetic to the idea. In either case, that wasn't what the right was intended for.

Now, we are so focused on using the First Amendment in ways it was never intended, that we have forgotten its true purpose. To protect political speech and information.

Is the "truth truck" gory? You bet.

Is there an argument that it depicts things that children shouldn't see? Absolutely.

But that case is MUCH harder to make when you can turn on the TV and see equivalent degrees of blood and gore -- purely for entertainment value.

Gaia forbid people know EXACTLY what goes on in an abortuary. :rolleyes: They can show EQUALLY graphic images on medical shows, the CSI series, but to put still images of a "legal" procedure isn't visually appropriate. Not to mention the window displays in the out-facing establishments in the Mall such as Victoria's Secret. I was in the Mall black Friday, and the window display was practically pornographic!

Go figure. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon8.gif


The images are unlawful yet the act is not? Utter BS. I remember posting a similar article about an abortion clinic in the UK years ago. Someone there had sent images of aborted children to the clinic and the employees were outraged. :rolleyes:

They not only saw, but performed the act which produced the gore with their own hands, everyday. Yet the sight of such offends them?

Simply put, people putting up such images is bad for their business, thus the reason they want them censored. The death-profiteers work hard to keep the reality of the "choice" movement hidden from both their clientele and the general public. How dare anyone make their customers face the reality that their "choice" is a very gory and disgusting one!

*Insert*

Come now Maggie. Get with the times. We all know the 1st was only designed to protect things like fag porn and anti-American propaganda. Since when has "hate" been protected speech? These banners constitute hate toward abortionists, and as such are not allowed...

yet somehow stabbing babies in the brain and throwing them into trash cans is not "hate." :question:

Dogs have more worth than human babies.

Witness the PETA people that were protected when they held up signs with mangled dogs after dogfighting.

That's ridiculous. It's free expression. Our founders are rolling in their graves.

:yeahthat: All of the above.


This is not about free speech but rather about what should be displayed publicly.

Not really a good argument. Many images of sex are unlawful, but the act is not....thank GOD!!!!! :rotflmbo:

Some people say the same thing about porn. They're saying this is an issue of displaying something publicly that is oscene or vulgar. I'm not saying I agree with their definition, but the 1A does not protect the public display of something that is vulgar or obscene. I don't think this qualifies as that. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

What you are talking about involves titillation, which the founders wouldn't have seen as a central governing principle in our government. The freedom to inform and persuade on an important political issue, a life-or-death one, is a far different matter.

[Rhino]

What you are talking about involves titillation, which the founders wouldn't have seen as a central governing principle in our government.Not really. That was just an illustrative example. I was talking about the principle of free speech not necessarily protecting the display of something obscene, whether it be titillating or not.

The freedom to inform and persuade on an important political issue, a life-or-death one, is a far different matter.I agree, but that still is not necessarily unlimited. If one were attempting to inform and persuade on the issue of banning pornography, an important political issue, they would not necessarily be able to publicly display that pornography. The only reason I use pornography in my examples, is because pornography is the most widely addressed instance of such issues, and thus the most widely understood. If one were campaigning to combat genocide, that would not necessarily make them free to publicly display grotesque pictures of the most gory instances of it. Many of those pictures would be offensive, particularly to young children. So I wasn't specifically addressing pornography, nor titillation, but simply using it as one example of the point I was trying to get across.

[ardentconservative]

This is not about free speech but rather about what should be displayed publicly.


Personally I think that the images should be displayed publicly so that the public is forced to see what goes on in the "gulags" we call abortion mills. Remember WWII. The German people knew what Hilter was doing but turned a blind eye because they didn't have to deal with it on a daily basis. The after the war we made them walk through the camps a view what they had allowed to happen. Germany to this day still remembers the horrors of Hitler's gulags.

[HarvickFan29]

Personally I think that the images should be displayed publicly so that the public is forced to see what goes on in the "gulags" we call abortion mills. Remember WWII. The German people knew what Hilter was doing but turned a blind eye because they didn't have to deal with it on a daily basis. The after the war we made them walk through the camps a view what they had allowed to happen. Germany to this day still remembers the horrors of Hitler's gulags.

We should all be reminded and shown how the agenda of liberals and any other American enemies has resulted in harming this country. They should be reminded of what they have sown. If they're so proud, they shouldn't mind. Those who point it out shouldn't be turned into the bad guys.

[ardentconservative]

We should all be reminded and shown how the agenda of liberals and any other American enemies has resulted in harming this country. They should be reminded of what they have sown. If they're so proud, they shouldn't mind. Those who point it out shouldn't be turned into the bad guys.

I agree Harvick, and I am convinced that if the American people truely the horrors of the abortion mills, and what actually was being done to the infant in the mother's womb they would put a stop to it.

[HarvickFan29]

I agree Harvick, and I am convinced that if the American people truely the horrors of the abortion mills, and what actually was being done to the infant in the mother's womb they would put a stop to it.

Glad you agree that everyone needs to see the results of irresponsible behavior. I just don't understand how the people who point out such evil are attempted to be made evil themselves but this country has a way of doing that. :shame:

[ardentconservative]

Glad you agree that everyone needs to see the results of irresponsible behavior. I just don't understand how the people who point out such evil are attempted to be made evil themselves but this country has a way of doing that. :shame:


Well, someone once said that in "an insane society, the sane must necessarily seem insane." That may very well be an apt description of the society we are now living in.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

ardentconservative:
I agree Harvick, and I am convinced that if the American people truely the horrors of the abortion mills, and what actually was being done to the infant in the mother's womb they would put a stop to it.

:unsmile: I doubt it. I think most Americans already know how gruesome it really is, but still think it should be a woman's "right".

[namvet527]

I see, it's ok to post GORY WAR PICTURES all over but not ABORTION pictures.

Typical LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.

Liberals are so ANTI FREE SPEACH unless it is godless, immoral or perverted.

I am so SICK of LIBERAL HYPOCRISY & DOUBLE STANDARDS.

[HarvickFan29]

NamVet, on the issue of abortion the GOP doesn't have a Reagan to vote for this time. Even he picked a pro-choice candidate in George H.W. Bush. And even President Bush believes there should be exceptions. However, more and more states have made it more difficult to get them and some doctors simply refuse to perform them. The best we can hope for is to give the states more power in doing that, and educate the youth to be responsible.

Shocking the youth with pictures such as this, is no different than showing them an automobile where a teenager has died in a drunk driving accident. Seeing it in pictures is better than them seeing it firsthand.

[Timberwolf]

Actually Harv, we have TWO "Reagans" for whom we can vote...Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter.

[ColonialMarine0431]

Hunter/Thompson '08
Thompson/Hunter '08

Either way, you can't go wrong. :claps:

[HarvickFan29]

Wolfie, I can't remember Hunter's view on abortion but it could be closer to Reagan's than I recall. Remember Reagan's views on abortion? IIRC, he favored an outright ban except when the mother's life is in danger.

But, Thompson's view on abortion ain't Reagan's for sure.

At any rate, abortion is not the main issue for me and I overlooked the fact that George W. Bush's view on it didn't match mine.

[Rhino]

Thompson's view on abortion is about the same as Reagan's, and maybe even a bit stronger, since Reagan did indeed sign pro abortion legislation as governor.

[Forget_the_Truth]

so its too disgusting for people to see

yet its okay to do?

the reason people are initially repulsed is because it is wrong to kill whats going to be a baby, people feel sick in the gut if they are a compassionate human being for a reason, thats why other than psychos, to kill or harm is sickening

i dont see how people can seperate logic from raw feelings

the reason it makes feel sick to see, is because its an un-human, murderous action!

[namvet527]

So it is ok for anti fur LEFT WING LIBPUKE can drag blooding furs all over and anti peace activists can show gory war posters. (I call them anti PEACE not anti war. Cuz if you don't fight a war when it is brought upon you you will not have peace as was demonstrated under sick willie KKKlintoon

[Taylor1]

So it is ok for anti fur LEFT WING LIBPUKE can drag blooding furs all over and anti peace activists can show gory war posters. (I call them anti PEACE not anti war. Cuz if you don't fight a war when it is brought upon you you will not have peace as was demonstrated under sick willie KKKlintoon

I hate liberals like this, they bitch at us for doing stuff when they do the thing just in their way all the time. I would like to have a national "Kick a liberal/hippie"
day where we can do that in revenge all day to tree huggers that we see everyday that piss us off with their little mo-peds on the interstate and their anti-war protests that riot police get called out for infront of congress. WHO'S WITH ME?

[Air Force Guy]

Not really a good argument. Many images of sex are unlawful, but the act is not....thank GOD!!!!! :rotflmbo:Not a good analogy. Sex is not about snuffing out someone's life. When it does devolve into that, it becomes illegal.

[Rhino]

You missed the point entirely. Go back and read the original exchange. An image of an act can be illegal, whether the act is or not. What you just said supports my analogy, though you apparently don't know that.

[Air Force Guy]

You were apparently trying to refute his premise with a poor analogy. There are probably better analogies to go with (but I didn't spend any time trying to develop one). Namvet is more on track with the hypocrisy of the whiners.

That is my point.
<HR style="COLOR: #b9b9b7" SIZE=1> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TAQPIO1&show_article=1)No Charges Over Abortion Images in Ga. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TAQPIO1&show_article=1)

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. (AP) - A suburban Atlanta prosecutor has dropped a disorderly conduct charge against an anti-abortion activist who was arrested for driving a truck emblazoned with images of (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TAQPIO1&show_article=1)aborted fetuses (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=).

Gwinnett County Solicitor Rosanna Szabo said the display of the images, "as shocking and offensive as they are," didn't violate the law.
(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TAQPIO1&show_article=1) Hear, hear!

[Wolfcounsel]

"You missed the point entirely. Go back and read the original exchange. An image of an act can be illegal, whether the act is or not. What you just said supports my analogy, though you apparently don't know that." --Rhino, to Air Force Guy


Coitus is legal with two mature consenting heterosexuals, and so is abortion. Demonstrating both acts through pictures is illegal? How? Or maybe I missed something.

[Air Force Guy]

"You missed the point entirely. Go back and read the original exchange. An image of an act can be illegal, whether the act is or not. What you just said supports my analogy, though you apparently don't know that." --Rhino, to Air Force Guy


Coitus is legal with two mature consenting heterosexuals, and so is abortion. Demonstrating both acts through pictures is illegal? How? Or maybe I missed something.WC, he's not talking about the pics themselves, he's referring to the improper distribution of them. ...I think.

But then, what law was ever established regarding the "proper" distribution of pictures from a baby-killing-mill?

[Rhino]

You were apparently trying to refute his premise with a poor analogy.No, his point was that the legality of images of acts and the acts themselves should coincide. That isn't true, and my analogy was quite appropriate. Your post further supported that, when you noted that sex can be either legal or illegal, depending on the circumstances. That doesn't affect the legality of images. They can, and very often are, a separate issue.

[Rhino]

Coitus is legal with two mature consenting heterosexuals, and so is abortion. Demonstrating both acts through pictures is illegal? How? Or maybe I missed something.Looks that way, because I didn't say that. I pretty much said the opposite. The legality of the act does not necessarily affect the legality of the pictures.

I'll try another analogy that maybe AFG will have better luck understanding: It's illegal to break the speed limit, but it isn't illegal to take or display pictures of people doing it. Hence, the illegality of the act does not necessarily make pictures of it illegal.

[Rhino]

WC, he's not talking about the pics themselves, he's referring to the improper distribution of them. ...I think.Nope. I'm just saying that an act being illegal does not necessarily make pictures of it illegal, or vice versa. There are legal pictures of illegal acts, and illegal pictures of legal acts. The two do not tie together.

[Wolfcounsel]

I understand now. Took me only two pots of coffee also.:thumb:

[Air Force Guy]

No, his point was that the legality of images of acts and the acts themselves should coincide. That isn't true, and my analogy was quite appropriate. Your post further supported that, when you noted that sex can be either legal or illegal, depending on the circumstances. That doesn't affect the legality of images. They can, and very often are, a separate issue.You mean like bullfighting and the images of a dying bull in the ring? Dogfighting and pictures of mangled dogs on protestor placards? Anti-war wimps showing mangled Iraqi children on placards (but not homicide bomber's victims' remains)?

It's a whirlwind of logic confusion but whatever your take, I support the guy who showed images of aborted babies in public.

Here's a combo that I don't think I've ever seen...capital punishment and images of the condemned after execution. THAT sounds to me like the rarest combination.

[Rhino]

YIt's a whirlwind of logic confusion but whatever your take, I support the guy who showed images of aborted babies in public.So do I.

[DeclinetoState]

I can understand the objection if the banners caused such a distraction they presented a safety hazard or something, but I fail to see how even that would justify throwing the driver in the hoosegow.