Of course not, they have the right to their opinion, but I don't want to see anyone attacked or their car damaged because someone has decided that only their opinion is the correct one.
Pro Life Liscense plates
- Thread starter BadBoy@TheWheel
- Start date
Of course not, they have the right to their opinion, but I don't want to see anyone attacked or their car damaged because someone has decided that only their opinion is the correct one.
That's no reason to restrict someone's rights. We have too much of gov't protecting us from ourselves already.
But if someone is likely to be harmed for stating their unpopular views, wouldn't the smart thing be to simply keep quiet?
So do you have a problem with someone walking about openly gay or of a different religion or race? In my experience these things cause more violence than a simple political disagreement.
Of course not, but if the gay person started ranting about how much they hated straight people, that would be cause for concern, same as if a black person said something unfavourable about white people. Some opinions should just be kept quiet, IMO.
Absolutely. No doubt about it. I agree completely. It's definitely the smart thing to do.
It's not the government's place to decide that for us. Millions of Americans have risked and sacrificed their lives (definitely not the smart thing to do - they might be harmed) so that we all may have the freedom to decide that for ourselves.
Imagine if the government decided that posting controversial opinions or unpopular views online might bring harm upon the poster, and therefore made it illegal.
I agree. I was just responding to the bit about free speech. I don't think it is the place of the government to provide ANYTHING supporting a particular political cause to the people, including license plates. But they already do, through wildlife conservation groups and whatnot, so it makes me think that they should provide other plates for other controversial issues. I mean, why is it fair for the government to support some agendas but not others?
Bottom line is, they should get rid of all license plates that might be controversial, and stick with things like pictures of trees or sunsets.
Exactly. :thumbup
Okay, so would you say that someone who chooses to broadcast their opinions, knowing they may be attacked because of it, should be made to take responsiblity for an attack against them? After all, if they hadn't said anything, they wouldn't have been attacked by those people who may have been highly offended.
Huh?
I'm not into arguing for argument's sake. We agree that license plates shouldn't have controversial political statements, just not for the same reason.
Oh okay, I must have misunderstood your last statement.:thumbup
No, the responsibility of the attack still falls on the attacker. But there is no reason to censor things that might cause more attacks. If someone wants to put themselves at more risk of coming under attack, that is (and should continue to be) their own choice. It's called freedom of speech.
I put a West Ham sticker on my car as many people do for their football teams. I really dont see its my fault if some douchebag vandalises my car because of it, more likely to happen than if I had a pro life sticker in it too. The only people who need to get done for this are the twats who cant hack another persons opinion without resorting to careless vandalism.
Does the state also allow pro-abortion license plates? (I think I all ready know the answer.) That is the only way it would be fair. However it's probably better if any state looks to other methods to increase the revenue flow.