Well, the obvious corollary to this is that most people who don’t oppose abortion do so because they don’t believe it’s murder.
Whether that statement is true or not, you must at least accept that some people do, in fact, feel that way. And that viewpoint is legitimate, even in your eyes, or you wouldn’t have written your statement the way you did. In your eyes, abortion is murder. Fine. But in other eyes, it’s not. Also fine.
But even if we equate abortion to murder, what does that have to do with the signs? Why must I see those signs on the highway when I’m driving down the road? I’m never going to “murder” a fetus, so why must I be forced to view it?
And what purpose does it accomplish? How about we equate it to murder. How about we show pictures of point blank gunshot victims and roll them around on trucks with the slogan “guns are bad, m’kay?”
If I were a potential criminal, and I saw that, I can guarantee you my next words wouldn’t be “Hey Cletus, I think we shouldn’t be robbin’ the Quik-E-Mart tonight. Suppose’n we go off and shoot the cashier all accidental like? I…I…never thought of him as a human being before. But that close up of gray matter made’n me sees the light.”
Gross pictures serve to gross people out. Education is the only thing that educates. I’m frankly surprised I need to spell that out for you.
Hey, doesn’t that God dude you claim to believe in claim that all of us our sinners? So explain to me again how you come by this supposed moral superiority? Oh, that’s right–you bestowed it upon yourself. Hey, that means Crafter_Man is God!
And yet all 50 state legislatures and the Supreme Court disagree with you, so why is it that we should care that you typed this particular tautology?
milroyj, this post is in regards to the information that I promised you I would provide.
Before I get into it, let me make two disclaimers. #1 I am not a lawyer. I am not claiming that the information I present to you is ironclad law. Merely that it is the information which best represents the research I did over the last hour and a half. It is not complete either…but then, you get what you pay for. #2 the information mostly comes from American Jurisprudence which is not a legally binding source. It is accurate, and it is sometimes persuasive in a court of law, but it is not “The Law.” The Law comes from the cases that Am Jur cites from its research. It’s close enough for our purposes and, if you’re really that interested in the black letter law, you can use my research to springboard yourself through the lovely law library yourself.
OK, this problem can be broken down into two main parts.
Freedom of speech
responsibility the owners of the truck owe to the public.
This truck is an advertisement. To advertise means the act or practice of attracting public notice and attention (3 Am Jur 2d Advertising §2). I think most of us realize that advertising can and does get sanctioned. You can’t advertise tobacco on TV. You can’t advertise child pornography anywhere. That these pictures are not enticing anyone to BUY anything is irrelevant. It is intended to aid, directly or indirectly in the furtherance of an idea (3 Am Jur 2d Advertising §2).
So this truck can be sanctioned, or barred from being displayed. The question is, will it?
The regulation and control of vehicles that tend to divert the attention of users of congested streets and highways by displaying advertising to such extent as to materially affect the public welfare by increasing traffic hazards is a valid exercise of the police power (3 Am Jur 2d Advertising §23). Thus, advertising vehicles may be prohibited on the streets of a municipality or they may be prohibited from operating on certain streets (3 Am Jur 2d Advertising §23).
Basically, this is saying that if you advertise something that screws up traffic and cause injuries/wrecks, the government can stop you from advertising it because it’s a distraction. They also noted that using a vehicle to ONLY advertise can be prohibited. Such as, using a van to advertise your wares by parking it in a parking lot all day long, but not using that van to conduct any business. So…it then becomes necessary to ask what that abortion truck is doing on the highway? Is its sole purpose to advertise, or is it actually going somewhere?
Next is the Miller test of obscenity. It requires the trier of fact to determine whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would find that the particular material appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive (50 Am Jur 2d Lewdness, Indecency, Etc §7).
Basically, would a reasonable person find the pictures of aborted fetuses objectionable? I would answer yes.
Also, the standards of the First Amendment are different for adults and children. What may be perfectly acceptable for an adult to see or hear may not be allowed to be taught within a public school (50 Am Jur 2d Lewdness, Indecency, Etc §25). If it isn’t allowed in a public school, I’m going to guess it shouldn’t be allowed on a highway where children can also see it.
The causing of an accident. I did no real research on this end. Let me explain, though, the concept of negligence. If you have a duty and you’ve breached that duty which causes damages, you will be responsible for the remedy. Every driver has a duty to other drivers not to cause an accident. This includes not distracting another driver to the point where he or she has an accident.
If you were to shoot a gun at another car and he goes into a ditch, you’re responsible. If you cut another car off in traffic and he slams on his brakes to avoid hitting you and hits the car behind him instead, you’re responsible. If your tire accidentally explodes and you go skidding across the road and someone watches this, doesn’t see where he’s going and slams into a pole, you’re responsible.
You’re not always 100% responsible. You are contributorily negligent though. The percentage of your negligence is up to a jury.
If you display pictures which distract the driver to the point where he or she gets into an accident because of that distraction, guess what? You’re screwed! And yes, screwed is a legal term.
If anyone would like to point out inaccuracies, please feel free. For now, I think I’ve answered this question to the best of my abilities given the real schoolwork I have.
IANAL…and FTR, as I stated earlier I disagree with Mr. Cunningham’s methods. But in terms of whether he has the RIGHT to do so…
Is the truck really an advertisement? Isn’t it instead political speech subject to a different set of restrictions than say tobacco advertisement?
This is just my gut reaction…not something I can stand behind with cites…and so I would welcome more feedback on whether he has the legally protected right to do such a thing. This seems like the very kind of thing that the ACLU would defend if there was a challenge to his ability to drive said truck on the highway.
But is this really advertising? It seems it would be considered political speech under the law and thus receive greater protections that commercial speech.
No argument there. The government regulates vehicles and drivers in a thousand ways. But here’s what happened in my neighborhood. Nitwits similiar to Mr. Cunningham from the OP were standing near major intersections with some of the very same pictures. They were on public property (on the sidewalks), not blocking traffic, in broad daylight when everyone driving by including the kids saw those pictures. Assuming these protestors weren’t breaking any laws, should they have been made to leave by the police? If so, on what grounds?
You say the pictures are patently offensive, which is a reasonable position. But you left out the “prurient interest” part of the Miller test. According to Websters, “purient” is defined as “marked by, or arousing, or appealing to unusual sexual desire.” :eek: If anyone is getting aroused by abortion pictures, they have other issues. So I don’t think the abortion pictures would pass Miller as obscenity.
I understand the concept of negligence, but I’m not sure it applies in this instance. What if a driver is distracted by the Oscar Mayer WeinerMobile driving down the road and gets into an accident? Is Oscar Mayer responsible? Here’s another IRL example. Several years ago, a men’s clothing store began advertising on the side of a building abutting the Kennedy Expressway in Chicago. They painted larger than life murals of local celebrities. When an image of Michael Jordan was done during the height of Bulls-Mania, traffic was literally stopped as people gawked. Now if Driver A isn’t paying attention and hits Driver B, then Driver A is responsible, not the clothing store or Michael Jordan, IMHO.
Not inaccuracies, just a difference of opionion. And my apologies to the SDMB (are apologies even allowed in the PIT? :)) to anyone I may have offended by being overly harsh earlier in this thread.
Well, two people have pointed out that there may be a difference between political speech and advertising. That may be true, but, from the definition I read and gave to you, those trucks do seem to fall under the definition of advertising. What the courts will say, I have no idea.
And you’re right about the Miller Test being more about pornography. But I found that a number of different subjects all linked back to that Miller test so it led me to believe that it, or something similar, is used in other areas besides just pornography.
Finally, my opinion is that there’s a difference between Michael Jordon off to the side of a building and pictures of aborted fetuses on a truck. The most important of which is that you have to look away from the road to see Jordon. There are laws on placement of billboards, that it cannot be within X number of feet from the road (I believe 660). I didn’t put this in with the above research because I didn’t believe it was relevant. But the law is there so it doesn’t distract your normal viewing of the road, whereas billboards right above where you drive would. Aborted fetuses on a truck would.
Your Oscar Meyer example is a good one and I don’t have an answer for you.
Last year at my university there was an anti-abortion demonstration by a group of incredibly sick individuals. They set up 15 foot pictures of aborted fetuses in the middle of the student center. Everybody was disgusted. I couldn’t believe that the university allowed the demonstration, but they insisted it was just freedom of speech. It doesn’t matter if you’re pro-life or otherwise- you wouldn’t want to see this. And worst of all, this was a demonstration by a religious group.
I guess what you haven’t learnt is that your not a woman and you’ll never have to face this in your lifetime. This is a women’s issue not some beer swilling mans!!!
