Bullying desguised (badly) as precaution

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
I wonder if the ACLU would not protect your "freedom" to fly, or even my
freedom to bear arms, despite the fact that my freedom is enshrined in the
Constitution.

You're much better at aviation trolling than at political trolling.

--Gary

The case was founded to be a violation of the First Amendment..Freedom of
Speech. Which the court said Freedom of Speech means the freedom not to
speak. The guy just happened to be a Jehovah's Witness, but that did not
enter into the courts reason of why he should be allowed to cover that
saying on the plate. See below..

Wooley v. Maynard
430 U.S. 705 (1977)
Docket Number: 75-1453
Abstract



Argued:
November 29, 1976

Decided:
April 20, 1977


Subjects: Judicial Power: First Amendment



Facts of the Case
A New Hampshire law required all noncommercial vehicles to bear
license plates containing the state motto "Live Free or Die." George
Maynard, a Jehovah's Witness, found the motto to be contrary to his
religious and political beliefs and cut the words "or Die" off his plate.
Maynard was convicted of violating the state law and was subsequently fined
and given a jail sentence.


Question Presented
Did the New Hampshire law unconstitutionally interfere with the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?


Conclusion
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that New Hampshire could not
constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their
vehicle license plates. The Court found that the statute in question
effectively required individuals to "use their private property as a 'mobile
billboard' for the State's ideological message." The Court held that the
State's interests in requiring the motto did not outweigh free speech
principles under the First Amendment, including "the right of individuals to
hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster. .
..an idea they find morally objectionable."




Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
I wonder if the ACLU would not protect your "freedom" to fly, or even my
freedom to bear arms, despite the fact that my freedom is enshrined in
the
Constitution.

You're much better at aviation trolling than at political trolling.

--Gary

First, your contention that I am "making it up" is synonymous with calling
me a liar. I didn't make it up, I'm not a liar, and I expect an apology.

Second, if you pay any attention to aviation matters, you should be familiar
with the disputes revolving around the expansion of O'Hare Airport. Look at
the reasons put forth for some of these people's objections. There is often
a great variance between peoples stated reasons for something and their true
reasons.

It may have been the case of people professing to be Jehovah's Witnesses
that resulted in the definitive ruling on the matter, but they were by no
means the only people involved in the protest. Once a judicial precedent is
set in one case, it is not necessary to litigate every single case.

I no longer have access to the post where you cited the particular case. If
you will repost it, I will be happy to take a look.



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
...
Actually, it wasn't about religion.

It was just a bunch of left-wing hippie wacko's who claimed that New
Hampshire wasn't truly free, whatever that means.

No, you're just making that up, which is why you don't mention any source.

If you looked up the case I cited, you'd see that the defendent (there was
just one, not a "bunch") was a Jehovah's Witness whose objection to the
slogan was explicitly religious.

--Gary

The state took action based on laws banning defacing license plates.



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

With famous irony, New Hampshire used to imprison people who had
religious objections to the motto and taped over it on their own
license
plates.

What were the religious objections?

I don't know. From a Constitutional standpoint, though, the only issue
was
that they deeply disagreed with an idea that they were being forced by
the
government to conspicuously advertise on their own cars; their reasons
for
disagreeing were beside the point.

--Gary

"You're much better at aviation trolling than at political trolling.

--Gary"

Hmmm. Can one be a "political troller?" I think if you participate in
the process then, by definition, you are not a troll. If I correctly
understand the definition of troll, that is.

If and when I restart my training, will I be instantly transformed from
AvTroll to simple critic? Or do I need to first pass the check ride? Not
that the "troll" label upsets me in any way. I'm just curious.

I'm also very curious as to why GA planes aren't named. Maybe some are,
but I haven't seen 'em. If I can get my ticket and then buy a plane, damn
it, I'm gonna paint a name on it!

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..

There is often
a great variance between peoples stated reasons for something and their
true
reasons.

Yes, but how is that relevant here? Are you suggesting that the Jehovah's
Witness was really a "left-wing hippie" (as you put it below) disguising his
true identity and objections?

It may have been the case of people professing to be Jehovah's Witnesses
that resulted in the definitive ruling on the matter, but they were by no
means the only people involved in the protest.

It wasn't a protest. Maynard simply refrained from promoting a belief he
disagreed with. There may well be others who disagreed with that belief for
other reasons--I never suggested otherwise--but they were not involved in
the case I cited (Wooley v Maynard), and there is nothing to support your
claim that the objection to the motto flatly "wasn't about religion".

your contention that I am "making it up" is synonymous with calling
me a liar.

You're being melodramatic. If I'd meant to say you were lying, I wouldn't
have euphemized.

You did, however, state as fact (but without trying to provide any factual
support) that (contrary to what I'd just asserted) there was *no* religious
objection to the motto, but rather "just" some "hippies'" political
objections. Passing off as fact a false statement that you did not take a
moment to factually investigate is what I'd characterize as making it up,
even if you did not actually know your remark was false (and thus were just
being sloppy, rather than lying).

--Gary

Gary:
With famous irony, New Hampshire used to imprison people who had religious
objections to the motto and taped over it on their own license plates. The
ACLU came to the rescue in Wooley v Maynard.

Bill:
Actually, it wasn't about religion.

It was just a bunch of left-wing hippie wacko's who claimed that New
Hampshire wasn't truly free, whatever that means.

Skylune wrote:

"It means you're forced to do things you wouldn't otherwise do. How
ironic

that most of the things forced on us are the products of left-wing wacko
politicians."

Having now officially severed all (real estate) ties from New Yawk, I can
definitively say that the Right Wing Whackos are infinitely superior to
the Left Wing Whackos.


That's because we are right. :-)

Matt

Skylune wrote:

Why don't small private planes have names on them?

Some do.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Oops, you've gotten stuck in a loop, Steven. Instead of answering my
question, you ignored what I said and repeated your prior statement.

I repeated the answer to your question.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:55:55 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

With famous irony, New Hampshire used to imprison people who had religious
objections to the motto and taped over it on their own license plates.

What were the religious objections?

The objections weren't religious, of course. They were political.

Nor have I ever heard of anyone being imprisoned for taping over "Live
Free or Die".

However, it used to be true that the plates were manufactured in the
state prison. (Probably now outsourced to China


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Cub Driver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:55:55 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

With famous irony, New Hampshire used to imprison people who had
religious
objections to the motto and taped over it on their own license plates.

What were the religious objections?

The objections weren't religious, of course. They were political.

Nor have I ever heard of anyone being imprisoned for taping over "Live
Free or Die".

How can you "never have heard" of it? The message of mine that you're
responding to (the one that's partially quoted above) already cited a
particular case in which the imprisonment (of a Jehovah's Witness, who had
religious objections to the motto) occurred.

--Gary