In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Pro-lifers' free speech censored in San Francisco
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Pro-lifers censored
in San Francisco
'Overzealous' officers demand bridge walkers remove T-shirts
Posted: May 22, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Law-enforcement officers on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco demanded that a pair of college students walking across the structure as part of a demonstration remove their pro-life T-shirts or be subject to a fine and jail time.
"Our walkers' free-speech rights have been stifled by the bridge patrol," said Adam Redmon, director of Crossroads, a division of American Life League, the organization sponsoring the walk. "Officers ordered our team members ? who were wearing pro-life T-shirts ? to remove their shirts. America is pro-life, and pro-life Americans should not be targeted for discrimination ? especially in the San Francisco Bay area, where the right to free expression is held in high regard."
Crossroads' annual walk, in which pro-life students walk across the country, began on Monday. According to the organization, the participants "pray at abortion facilities, speak at churches and host town hall meetings to educate the public about abortion."
Leaving San Francisco and heading to Toronto on Monday, the walkers approached the Golden Gate Bridge. As they crossed, officers from the Golden Gate District stopped them and told them their shirts were not allowed on the bridge. On the front, the T-shirts read "Pro-Life." An American flag is featured on the back.
According to Crossroads, the walkers were informed that the pro-life shirts are a form of political protest and that if they didn't remove the clothing, they could be punished with a $10,000 fine and a year in jail.
Redmon told WorldNetDaily that the officers told the students their walking was a distraction to traffic on the bridge. But to communicate their demand to the walkers, he said, the policemen "had to stop traffic."
"The officers were very insistent" about the need to remove the shirts, Redmon said.
The two students who were stopped complied with the officers' demand to remove their shirts. Three others were faster walkers and thus reached the opposite side without being stopped. Redmon was unsure what other clothing the students had available besides the T-shirts.
Kary Witt, bridge manager of the Golden Gate District, has apologized for the incident.
"It should not have happened," he told WND. "One officer got way overzealous."
Witt said a representative from the San Francisco Catholic Diocese contacted him to complain and that he offered the district's apology.
"I have briefed all our officers on it," he said, to ensure that a similar incident doesn't happen again.
Witt says the same college students were on the bridge on Saturday and unfurled a banner, which is prohibited without a permit. One of the officers was aware of the action on Saturday and, said Witt, "feared they were going to unfurl the banner again."
The students carried a three-foot statue of Mary with them, but it was the shirts that the officers objected to.
According to Redmon, there have been over 25 cases this year alone where public high-school students have been told not to wear pro-life shirts to school.
"This is a disturbing trend," Redmon said. "We have contacted our lawyers about the incident on the Golden Gate Bridge. We want to right this wrong before others are subjected to the discriminatory whim of the bridge patrol."
Witt hoped to contact Crossroads to head off any legal action against his agency.
Related special offers:
"Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation"
"The New Thought Police"
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27700
Ron Strom is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
in San Francisco
'Overzealous' officers demand bridge walkers remove T-shirts
Posted: May 22, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Law-enforcement officers on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco demanded that a pair of college students walking across the structure as part of a demonstration remove their pro-life T-shirts or be subject to a fine and jail time.
"Our walkers' free-speech rights have been stifled by the bridge patrol," said Adam Redmon, director of Crossroads, a division of American Life League, the organization sponsoring the walk. "Officers ordered our team members ? who were wearing pro-life T-shirts ? to remove their shirts. America is pro-life, and pro-life Americans should not be targeted for discrimination ? especially in the San Francisco Bay area, where the right to free expression is held in high regard."
Crossroads' annual walk, in which pro-life students walk across the country, began on Monday. According to the organization, the participants "pray at abortion facilities, speak at churches and host town hall meetings to educate the public about abortion."
Leaving San Francisco and heading to Toronto on Monday, the walkers approached the Golden Gate Bridge. As they crossed, officers from the Golden Gate District stopped them and told them their shirts were not allowed on the bridge. On the front, the T-shirts read "Pro-Life." An American flag is featured on the back.
According to Crossroads, the walkers were informed that the pro-life shirts are a form of political protest and that if they didn't remove the clothing, they could be punished with a $10,000 fine and a year in jail.
Redmon told WorldNetDaily that the officers told the students their walking was a distraction to traffic on the bridge. But to communicate their demand to the walkers, he said, the policemen "had to stop traffic."
"The officers were very insistent" about the need to remove the shirts, Redmon said.
The two students who were stopped complied with the officers' demand to remove their shirts. Three others were faster walkers and thus reached the opposite side without being stopped. Redmon was unsure what other clothing the students had available besides the T-shirts.
Kary Witt, bridge manager of the Golden Gate District, has apologized for the incident.
"It should not have happened," he told WND. "One officer got way overzealous."
Witt said a representative from the San Francisco Catholic Diocese contacted him to complain and that he offered the district's apology.
"I have briefed all our officers on it," he said, to ensure that a similar incident doesn't happen again.
Witt says the same college students were on the bridge on Saturday and unfurled a banner, which is prohibited without a permit. One of the officers was aware of the action on Saturday and, said Witt, "feared they were going to unfurl the banner again."
The students carried a three-foot statue of Mary with them, but it was the shirts that the officers objected to.
According to Redmon, there have been over 25 cases this year alone where public high-school students have been told not to wear pro-life shirts to school.
"This is a disturbing trend," Redmon said. "We have contacted our lawyers about the incident on the Golden Gate Bridge. We want to right this wrong before others are subjected to the discriminatory whim of the bridge patrol."
Witt hoped to contact Crossroads to head off any legal action against his agency.
Related special offers:
"Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation"
"The New Thought Police"
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27700
Ron Strom is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Happiness is a warm gun
Like in the NFL, defense is the key.
You see, I'm old enough to remember when these same groups ostracized pregnant girls, proudly disowned their own daughters, ran them out of their homes and schools, and pressured them into going to backstreet coat hanger abortionists, or in some cases suicide, to save their families' reputations -- just for having a so-called "bun in the oven." There was no concern for the fetus then -- quite the opposite -- a single girl who committed the cardinal sin of becoming a single mom was run out of town on a rail and she and her child became pariahs -- in the eyes of the same people who are sanctimoniously championing the "obviously correct" view of pro-life now.
This is why I am and will remain a pro-choice Republican. These people reaped what they sowed 40 years ago. As Moses once said, "out of his own mouth Pharoah will declare the next plague on his own people." Or words to that effect.
In the same way, by making outcasts of thousands of middle class girls and their children in the 60s, religious fundamentalists helped guarantee that pro-choice would be interpreted by the courts as an essential personal freedom for women. If the nouveau-pro-lifers don't like the fruits of their previous behavior now, fine, but had they cared for and had sympathy for single moms in the era when they were busy fighting "the pill" and unwed motherhood and calling American girls' babies "b*st*rds" in the most self-righteous tone imaginable, they might not legaized abortion contend with at all at this point. I hold them primarily, if not almost exclusively, responsible for the wave of sympathy in the U.S. that led to the passage of Roe v. Wade.
Before you decide to argue the fine points, let me repeat: Parents disowning daughters. Kids called b*st*rds. Coat hangers and suicides.
I apologize in advance to anyone who may be offended by this rather strong perspective on American history.
- Life NRA Member
"If dishonorable & cowardly men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - offeror on 05/24/2002 15:15:53
(I must be rather slow today because I can't decide if you were serious or satirical)
Offeror: Interesting bit of historical revisionism there.
You said: quote:Before you decide to argue the fine points, let me repeat: Parents disowning daughters. Kids called b*st*rds. Coat hangers and suicides.
While some parents MAY have disowned daughters, it was not the norm and I suspect that those same parents would today disown daughters who had an abortion for the same reasons. Kids were called b*st*rds?? What is wrong with that? Are they not b*st*rds? Coat hangers and suicides? There were other, better options (and still are), options like adoption. Why must we kill millions of babies just to quote: to save their families' reputations --
It would be more accurate and honest if you rephrased your last sentence to read quote: I apologize in advance to anyone who may be offended by this rather (wrong) perspective on American history.
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
You said: quote:Before you decide to argue the fine points, let me repeat: Parents disowning daughters. Kids called b*st*rds. Coat hangers and suicides.
quote: Girls left their STATE looking for "better" options. The one thing they couldn't do (outside the poverty-stricken class) was bring the baby home.
Isnt 'leaving their state' in order to have their baby and then put it up for adoption one of those better options? Sounds like a better option than coat hangers, suicide, or murdering an unborn child.
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
By admitting you characterize single moms' kids as b*st*rds, and by assuming that girls leaving their home state (for any reason) is a viable option, you are making my argument. A previous generation of pro-life-types created the climate in which Roe v. Wade was made. They reap what they sowed.
I rest my case.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
Getting back to the 1st Ammendment. I bet they would have made it across the bridge just fine if their t-shirts said "Pro-Queer" on the front and bore the picture of a phallus on the back. Speech is only free when it's liberal speech.
I wonder if he would have squealed and gotten into a slap-fight with anyone who didnt agree to take off the shirts...
> Over 90% of abortions were on white females. Not poor people. But rather a matter of convience to solve a "error in value judgment".
> Less than 1%(almost one half of one percent) are as a rape response.
> Most 'have to go out of state' abortions are due to Parental Notification Laws. Some states allow girls in school to leave for Planned Parenthood sponsered tests, and CAN be taken to an abortion clinic DURING school hours. Yet, my children couldn't even take an aspirin without a Doctor's note. Taxpayer's pay the transportation!
> The two women who started the very first orginazation of "repoductive services", were "very wealthy elite racists", who were concerned about the population growth of non-white skinned.
> Arguement was, "a fetus wasn't life". Science disproved that.
> Arguement was, "it's not human". Science disproved that. So did history, and the Holocost definations of who is human.
> Arguement was, "abortion doesn't hurt anybody". Medical science has disproved that.
Historical, bio medical, and pshchological facts (non emotional data) do not support the practice of abortion.
Happy Bullet Holes!
I wonder if he would have squealed and gotten into a slap-fight with anyone who didnt agree to take off the shirts..."
LMAO!
Stand And Be Counted
Happiness is a warm gun
You wrote:
> Over 90% of abortions were on white females. Not poor people. But rather a matter of convience to solve a "error in value judgment".
> Less than 1%(almost one half of one percent) are as a rape response.
> Most 'have to go out of state' abortions are due to Parental Notification Laws.
Exactly. The poor Black population is not responsible for the legalization of abortion. The wave of concern began among white middle class voters whose own families couldn't cope with the morality issue of an unmarried pregnancy. The morality issue, (i.e. value judgment) got us into this. It was all about Bible-thumping parents yelling "never in my household" and terrified girls who "couldn't" tell their mom or dad and "couldn't" be pregnant, on pain of -- what? The parental notification thing would only make it even more necessary for a girl to "erase her mistake" on her own. That's why there were backstreet abortionists, attempted self-abortions with overdoses of drugs and coat hangers, and whole families leaving town under a cloud of shame if a daughter was "PG."
You have the data right. The push that created the environment for legalized abortion came from the closed-minded reaction of the religious "righteous" who couldn't cope with the concept of a single mom in a "good" family. Girls disappeared permanently from schools, and it was rumored that the reason was pregnancy. Of course, under these conditions, there was a terror of getting pregnant, and abortion seemed like an opportunity to make the problem go away. For a teenager, that was about as far as they could think it through with that sword hanging over their heads. They knew they "couldn't" be pregnant. All this judging and name-calling of single girls, and their babies, came from the same kinds of groups that call themselves pro-life now. Trust me, the "concern" for the baby took a much nastier turn in the 60s than it does now.
It is only in the last few years that the religious right have changed tactics and now want to get these babies to term. Some of them stoop to planting phony adoption notices in the classifieds supposedly written by non-existent happy couples looking for "that special child."
Regardless of the fact that abortion is less necessary now than it was then to "erase" what the religious perceived as unforgiveable mistakes, please know that it was they themselves who set the wheels in motion.
That's all I'm saying. The hypocrisy in their smugness now reflects an unwillingness to look at, or a lack of education in, the whole history of this sad business. As I said earlier, they reap now what they sowed then. The smug protests and demonstrations in front of clinics don't impress me because these groups haven't ever apologized for their gross and cruel mistreatment of pregnant middle class white girls from "good" families in the 50s and 60s. You don't have to take my word for it, and I wish you wouldn't. Instead, ask a lot of adults old enough to have been teenagers in the 50s and 60s. If you can get them to talk about it. You'll find pregnancies and abortions in a lot of unexpected places in people's histories -- that could never be talked about afterward.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - offeror on 05/27/2002 16:51:41