free speech and the fetus truck

[brierebecca 0]

So I was driving home from my run this morning, and had to stop at an intersection. I glanced over, and a truck was parked at the light to my right. On the side of the truck, which was about the size of a regular industrial delivery truck, was a color photo of a bloody, mucousy fetus, with a dime thrown in the picture for scale. There were the beginnings of lungs, a discernable head, and limbs, but they were made up of a bloody mass of tissue. It was, of course, an anti-abortion ad. It was about 10X20 feet. I was shocked, and sat slack-jawed in the intersection until the car behind me blew its horn when the light had changed. I can't get the image out of my head, it was so offensive.

I feel certain that if I had been driving when I first encountered the picture, it could have caused me to have an accident, and I am not easily shocked. It was that horrible. I couldn't imagine what impact it would have had upon a woman who has had an abortion.

I've been thinking about it all morning, and like it or not, the owner of the truck had the right to display the picture. Brandenburg and Miller v. California, the big cases on the restriction of free speech and expression in this country, would never patently disallow such an image. Frankly, I have to admit that the image was the best argument I've ever seen for the elimination of the right to have an abortion.

To be clear, my abortion views are the same as many other women to whom I have spoken on the subject: I would never want to have one, but I patently respect and believe in a woman's right to choose. It's a personal decision, and one that the legislature shouldn't be able control or restrict.

I was wondering what the posters here would conclude about this form of expression.

Brie

edited to attach this link: http://abortionno.org/abortion_no.html

this is the organization who sponsored the ad.

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[justinb138 0]

Was it a company truck?

If so, and it causes someone to get distracted and get in a wreck, they're just setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

[kallend 2,070]

Maybe a few large pictures of dead women, killed by botched back street abortions prior to 1973, would do the trick.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

Was it a company truck?

If so, and it causes someone to get distracted and get in a wreck, they're just setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

I don't know if it was a company truck. The entire side of the truck was the image the the website.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

Maybe a few large pictures of dead women, killed by botched back street abortions prior to 1973, would do the trick.
...

Somehow I don't think the pro-choice movement would score any points going tit for tat on this one, but it's a great observation.


Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I patently respect and believe in a woman's right to choose. It's a personal decision, and one that the legislature shouldn't be able control or restrict.

So you don't feel there should be any limitation on how developed the baby is/viability? Is destroying the baby while inside a woman always 'a personal decision/right to choose' even if at 9 months development, while if it is outside the body for 1 second it is suddenly murder?

I think that position is unreasonable. I think that there should be limits based upon the age of the baby, and it should be a law or constitutional amendment. The national and/or state legislatures should address this directly and face the political consequences, and not leave it to the courts based upon medical privacy.

I think that is reasonable, some limitation on development stage. I believe, and so do most people, that at some point it is murder, and that is certainly an appropriate thing for legislatures to make illegal.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

So you don't feel there should be any limitation on how developed the baby is/viability? Is destroying the baby while inside a woman always 'a personal decision/right to choose' even if at 9 months development, while if it is outside the body for 1 second it is suddenly murder?

I didn't intend for this thread to be about abortion rights. I wanted opinions on this form of grotesque speech in traffic.

That said, Roe v. Wade currently allows states to restrict the ability of women to have abortions in the third trimester, and many have done so. Because I have never been pregnant, I could never deliver a personal opinion on what is right or wrong in any given situation. Because I believe it is a personal choice, I could comprehend many different circumstances where a third-trimester abortion could still be a viable option, especially where there are health risks involved.

If you could, please respond to this post in PMs, unless you would like to comment on the free speech issues.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[TrophyHusband 0]

the question is, could a boodly mangles adult be shown in the same manner for a seatbelt ad or dui ad? if so, then the anti abortion people have the same rights. i wouldn't have a problem with these types of images on tv for two reasons. first is that i don't want the government telling me what i can and can't look at. second, if i don't want to see it or don't want my children to see it, i can turn it off. ads on the sides of trucks and billboards enter into a gray area. if i'm driving around town and pull up next to one of these trucks with my kids, there's nothing i can do to protect them from shit that they just shouldn't see. so, is this type of gory advertisement free speech, whether it be a mangled fetus or mangled adult? i don't know. i find the female breast far less offensive, but surely that would never be allowed. maybe we as a society need to re-evaluate what is decent. (i know this can never happen)

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[sundevil777 102]

I think it is reasonable to impose some restrictions on gross displays of many kinds in public places, and the fetus picture would qualify to me.

Good luck at keeping this thread just to the free speech issue, but I'll cooperate from now on.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Rick 67]

I have seen a similar truck in Orlando and was also appalled at the image. Whether you believe abortion should be legal or not I think the truck makes the anti-abortion group that drives it around look like morons...IMHO

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[Dolph 0]

Mm. Trucks full of dead children with their limbs hacked off.

People with craniums leaking, punctured by shrapnel from a suicide bomb.

A picture of a man being executed while he watches his pre-teen daughter is dragged away.

Hey - it's anti-war. We should all have stuff like that on our cars.

Some people have no taste.

[Tink1717 2]

If the image is the one I've seen and are thinking of, they are a fabricated hoax. All staged for the advancement of the anti choice agenda. Check on Snopes.com.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Andy9o8 2]

Now how did I know this thread would be hijacked by people wanting to turn this into an abortion debate? Gee, that was hard to predict.
Read the original post, folks. What its subject is -- and is not -- is pretty clear.

[kelpdiver 2]

unless it can be shown to be a threat to public safety, there's not much to say about it. It's not obscene, it's valid political speech, and it's on private property.

Is it effective? I doubt it. I think it's very polarizing, but very unlikely to sway.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

unless it can be shown to be a threat to public safety, there's not much to say about it. It's not obscene, it's valid political speech, and it's on private property.

Is it effective? I doubt it. I think it's very polarizing, but very unlikely to sway.

Agreed; and I would also apply that if the truck was driving down a public street. I think any law or police action to prohibit/penalize the truck on the grounds it's too distracting to motorists would probably be viewed by most judges (well, Federal judges, at least) as a pretext for prohibition on grounds of offensiveness, and on that ground, unconstitutional.

[Dolph 0]

Hey I did dude.

I am just having problems finding pictures of the stuff I described.

Only found one so far, of Iraqi victims of a suicide bomber. Men with half their upper head blown off. Burned bodies, almost unrecognisable inside a car that burned after an attack.

I doubt most people would be ok with me having that on my car as I drive by their kids every day even though I do have a political point after all - this is reality, this happens in war, this is why we don't want war.

I could go further into other topics. In fact, I could take it so far into bad taste I'd probably not be able to live with myself if it was carried out in real life.

The question is whether it's ok, that was the original point. My response is: yes, as long as we allow for other political causes to be illustrated and campaigned for in the same manner.

Somehow, I think that the majority of people don't have the stomach for that.

If people want to see the ugly side of life - it is not hard to find. We collectively walk around with our eyes closed most of the time.

[Skyrad 0]

Thats irresponsible I feel. I am for informed consent and I don't belive that women going for abortion often get the details. However on the side of a truck like that is simply irresponsible.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca