We read:
"We see bumper stickers everyday. Some make us laugh, some are tacky, some are obnoxious. But a new Tennessee law will now regulate and penalize drivers for bumper stickers the state deems to be obscene.
“Starting Friday, Tennessee drivers caught with obscene or patently offensive bumper stickers, window signs or other markings on their vehicle visible to other drivers face an automatic $50 fine.
Source
I doubt that this would survive a 1st. Amendment challenge. SCOTUS has been pretty permissive in such matters. But who could afford to take it through court challenges? Because it is simpler to pay the $50, it becomes effective censorship.
12 comments:
What the state considers "obscene or patently offensive."
Well, can you think of something, anything, that couldn't be covered by that statement? Can you think of something that someone, somewhere, doesn't find patently offensive? This is all well and good if they are trying to turn Tenn. into Venezuela North. On the other hand, this is the kind of stuff that makes Americans reach for their guns. It's the kind of abuse that starts revolutions.
How many words in the phrase "fuck war" are obscene?
What fun! Just put offensive bumper stickers on the vehicles owned by the clowns that passed this law. And then after they've paid the fine, put on another one.
I'm sure the politicians have immunity - the mootherfookers!
Good to know that Tennessee has no more pressing issues to deal with than bumper stickers.
I live in Tennessee and this is news to me. At issue is the first amendment and protecting one's free speech. On the other hand, some people show no judgment whatsoever.
Case and point: I was recently driving my 12-year-old son to school. Beside us at a redlight was a bumper sticker saying the following:
How's my driving?
Call 1-800-EAT-SH.T
This is patently offensive on its face and I defy anyone to argue otherwise. We don't allow this language on general radio or television do we? Why should my son learn such language just by riding down the street?
Bottom line: there has to be a way to balance an idiot's free speech against my right to protect my son from said idiot. Which right is pre-eminent in such a case?
You'll have to give your son a blindfold and earplugs.
Anon 5:28, I will argue otherwise. I have heard worse on radio and TV and even if I haven't, I do not find that offensive in the least.
I can't control other's behavior, why worry about it? I'm guessing you were picked on alot as a kid.
http://news.yahoo.com/california-lawmakers-pass-bill-teach-gay-history-012938470.html
Liberals are now mandating that gay history be taught in schools..
10:32 I think it's probably that prominent names in "history" who were actually homosexual have rarely been recognized or mentioned as such, or how that may have influenced their lives or careers (a form of censoring historical truth).
Anon 5:28,.... i can understand your point, although i disagree with you. I think you would be providing a far greater benefit to your son (and his future) if you simply taught him how to live in "the real world".
I'd also bet you don't have Cable TV in your home?
You mean one offensive to obama?
Post a Comment