Driver Sues State After Receiving Ticket For 'Obscene' Stick Figure Vehicle Decal

from the [same-decal-but-with-Tennessee-in-back-and-driver-in-front] dept

The problem with bad laws (well, ONE problem) is they'll need to be enforced at some point. Legislators pass laws out of fear, boredom, or a desire to look busy. They'll pass laws to push personal agendas and closely-held beliefs. They'll pass laws in response to bizarre tragedies so unique they can't be found in expanded actuarial tables or at the behest of favored industry leaders. Every so often, they'll even pass laws citizens are demanding. But far too often, they'll just pass laws because they're legislators and it's right there in the job description.

They'll pass laws with zero regard for enshrined rights or their consitutents' civil liberties… like this Tennessee law which almost seems constitutional if no one examines it too closely. (via Adam Steinbaugh)

To avoid distracting other drivers and thereby reduce the likelihood of accidents arising from lack of attention or concentration, the display of obscene or patently offensive bumper stickers, window signs, or other markings on a motor vehicle which are visible to other drivers is prohibited and display of such materials shall subject the owner of the vehicle on which they are displayed, upon conviction, to a fine of not less than two dollars ($2.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00).

The catch here is offensive speech can still be protected speech while obscenity cannot. The state attorney general's office felt the law was perfectly consititutional, even as it was amended further to prevent the showing of "obscene or patently offensive movies" in vehicles if the content could be viewed outside of the vehicle. (My apologies. I have no idea what incident prompted this amendment, but I would imagine it would involve another driver or passerby being shocked, shocked! at the content being viewed by another driver in their own car.)

It even believes this law is constitutionally-sound despite paragraphs it included in its recommendation that clearly show this law actually ISN'T constitutional.

The Supreme Court has held that the police powers of the state permit the regulation of the display of obscene materials, including movies, and established the following test for judging whether material is obscene: (1) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

As the AG clearly stated in 2004, it could regulate obscenity. What it can't do is regulate mere offensiveness. It has to hit a pretty high bar to do so. The question is: does this window decal clear that bar?

This is why laws should be carefully crafted. This decal was applied to a man's car by his brother as a joke. And it's clearly a lowbrow parody of all those stick figure family decals, but for those who are more interested in the act of procreation.

A Metro police officer apparently didn't like the decal. Luckily, the Metro police had the (bad) law on its side. And a hint of Nuremberg in its press statement.

Channel 4 reached out to Metro police who said they don't make the laws, they simply enforce them.

It's not a law that needs much enforcement, fortunately.

Since 2011, Metro police have only cited four other people with violating the state's obscene sticker law.   

Actually, this indicates that it's a law that's very selectively enforced. With enough imagination, a great many bumper stickers and decals could be considered offensive. This law allows police officers to make that call subjectively. With the fine being $50 and the end result usually a fix-it ticket, no one's going to protest the unconstitutional law too loudly. Until they do.

Daniel Horowitz has taken up the driver's case. Horowitz is hoping to block [PDF] the law's enforcement until the court can rule on its constitutionality. The law certainly doesn't play nice with the First Amendment. Horowitz's restraining order motion [PDF] points out the parodic stick figure decal is protected speech as it's neither obscene nor patently offensive.

It does not, for example, display genitalia or any vivid portrayal of an ultimate sex act. It certainly does not display bestiality. And, in fact, the only indication that the stick-figure cartoons depicted in Mr. Owens’s bumper sticker are engaging in sex at all comes from the context offered from the description: “Making My Family.” See Exhibit B. Consequently, the notion that Mr. Owens’ stick-figure cartoon is even theoretically on par with “the ‘hard core’ types of conduct suggested by the examples given in Miller” is fantastical, and no reasonable fact-finder is likely to find otherwise.

The parodic nature of the decal only adds to its free speech value.

Rather than portraying his family, it indicates instead that he is in the process of “making [his] family,” and it displays two cartoon stick-figures engaged in that process. Id. Consequently—its crass nature notwithstanding— Mr. Owens’ sticker is a humorous and highly effective parody of “family stickers,” and it carries serious First Amendment value as a result.

With this filing, the state will likely be forced to confront its speech-hindering law. Dismissing the charges isn't going to dismiss the lawsuit and belated attempts to remove the plaintiff's standing aren't going to gather much judicial sympathy. This is why laws need to be crafted with an eye on the unintended consequences as well as their compliance with the Constitution. Doing otherwise results in litigation, which forces taxpayers to pay for the privilege of having to comply with unconstitutional laws -- and this is on top of the money they pay their representation to hopefully not screw things up TOO MUCH while in office.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 3:57am

    Its been a while, but lets all say one of my catchphrases.
    Say it with me...

    POWER CAUSES A FORM OF BRAIN DAMAGE.

    Stupid should hurt, and the fact that several of the idiots who approved this most likely have JD's & Bar Cards, they should act as multipliers to damages to be deducted from their salaries. Their law schools should issue formal apologies for failing to educate these fools. The Bar should immediately schedule MANDATORY '1st Amendment and You' CLE's with extra testing.

    I'm sure that there are a bunch of people who are perfectly fine with this because no ones ever issued them a ticket for their McCain Palin bumper sticker.... but that day is coming.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 6:07am

      Re:

      "because no ones ever issued them a ticket for their McCain Palin bumper sticker..."

      No, they just key your car, because those guys are always civil... right?

      THIS SHIT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO A PARTY OR GROUP! ALMOST EVERYONE PLAYS THIS CRAP!

      As an independent I am all for calling out the stupid that is common to specific groups, but it should be done while avoiding hypocrisy... well that is if your wee mind can handle it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 6:58am

        Re: Re:

        Your foster mom forced you to potty train before you were ready didn't she?
        And that coupled with your mother abandoning you most likely lead to this obsession with being so fucking anal.

        I'm an equal opportunity offender, I eventually piss everyone off.

        In closing, DIAFIRL you total embarrassment to unwanted children everywhere.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 7:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          lol, not being anal, just calling out a biased chump that thinks their shit does not stink while bitching about another chumps shit.

          The shoe fits... so wear it Hoss! Or maybe next time... don't telegraph your one-sided biases, by singling out one group for a sin that oppositional groups are every bit as guilty of. I mean, sure be a shit-stain if you want... just don't bitch when someone pours a little bleach on your ass for hanging around too long.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 11:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I really thought you were being anal as you decided to try and shit on me for a single reference to a bumper sticker that was the first thing that popped into my mind. I'm sorry you were offended I didn't make sure to include both sides in my original statement, I forgot I had a duty to make sure you weren't offended and couldn't find some tangent to obsess over.

            Very grown up to think a single comment I make exposes everything about me, I'm gonna show the alt-right kids I talk to this one and listen to the laughter. #TeamWoodchipper

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 3:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I'm sorry you were offended"

              me offended? naw... you just opened yourself up to a needed lesson is all and I was happy to stop what i was doing and instruct a fellow human (maybe you are not human?) on the internet that happened to be wrong. An insurmountable task I know, but it does not hurt to try from time to time.

              "Very grown up to think a single comment I make exposes everything about me, I'm gonna show the alt-right kids I talk to this one and listen to the laughter."

              Huh? I said it only revealed one aspect about you, that you lean left or democrat, I never made the case that is said everything about you. That was entirely your own dog and pony show. I made it clear that you targeted just ONE group for a problem that most others participate in equally. When people do that, it makes other believe you are batting around a little smidgen of Bias and you got called out for it.

              but hey, feel free to act like I was the butt hurt one when I am just here to provide a free lesson. it looks like you are not interested so I guess I will now let you have the last word! Try to make it good at least.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 4:28am

    It wouldn't even be a controversy if we as a society weren't choke full of taboos and prejudice. There's much we need to evolve.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 6:14am

      Re:

      Nail on the head.

      I am tired of each group trying to force their social, religious, secular, racial, or fiscal values onto everyone else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        OldMugwump (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 10:16am

        Re: Re: Nail on the head.

        Agreed, but this is a case of exactly what you're tired of.

        Everyone in this society knows there are lots of people who find any reference to sex offensive. Mr. "Making my Family" Owens surely knew lots of prudes would be upset, and was forcing that upset on "everyone else".

        It doesn't bother me a bit (I find it worth a chuckle).

        And I support the case, because the 1st Amendment needs to be defended in the grey areas if it's to be strong in the areas we care about.

        But this is a grey area, and Mr. Owens is not a nice person.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 12:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: Nail on the head.

          Sorry, no, this is not at all a gray area as far as the 1St Amendment is concerned. It is protected speech and the drafters KNEW the law is unconstitutional, it's in the text of the law itself.

          The sticker is obviously and blatantly meant to be offensive to a great many people, probably half of America. But it's no less legally protected speech than if someone posted a Sara Palin sticker on their car (which would likely offend 60% of the population).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2017 @ 4:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Nail on the head.

            What is offensive about it?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2017 @ 8:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Nail on the head.

            It is protected speech and the drafters KNEW the law is unconstitutional, it's in the text of the law itself.

            Those who conspire to violate The Constitution should be punished accordingly. Life in prison sounds about right. This kind of thing would stop pretty quickly.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            OldMugwump (profile), 17 Mar 2017 @ 9:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Nail on the head.

            This guy, by using the sticker, is "trying to force their social, religious, secular, racial, or fiscal values" onto those who are offended by them. For no discernible purpose other than to annoy them.

            Exactly what the AC is complaining about. And I agree with that complaint.

            Yes, he's within his 1st Amendment rights to do it.

            But he shouldn't.

            Lots of things are legal that ought not to be done by civilized people.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Sharatan, 18 Mar 2017 @ 1:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nail on the head.

              > This guy, by using the sticker, is "trying to force their social, religious, secular, racial, or fiscal values" onto those who are offended by them.

              How's that? Just because you say so?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 4:36am

    The only indication

    > And, in fact, the only indication that the stick-figure cartoons depicted in Mr. Owens’s bumper sticker are engaging in sex at all comes from the context offered from the description: “Making My Family.”

    That, and the facial expressions...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 12:50pm

      Re: The only indication

      That and the positioning.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        DCL, 14 Mar 2017 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: The only indication

        I disagree!
        She could be choking on a piece of food and he is giving her life-saving aid... and the text is supposed to say "making my family safe".

        Or they could be wrestling... oh, maybe you are right... co-ed wrestling is likely offensive to a lot of people.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 4:36am

    I imagine one could find at least one individual offended by any particular bumper sticker, and therefore all bumper stickers are illegal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 5:18am

    Stick figure families are like laws; it is better not to see them being made.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 5:22am

    unfortunately, maturity doesn't come with age

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 5:32am

    Why do people wear their opinions upon their bumpers?
    I don't get it - making fun of them I do get, but then who cares.

    My other car is a '62 Dodge

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 5:54am

    mr cushing, why don"t you just title: "another day in bible belt"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 5:56am

    And it appears someone who's read the Constitution & how much these cases end up costing, speedily got the cops to mea culpa and pickup the costs of bringing the lawsuit... which is probably cheaper.

    http://faultlines.us/fault-lines/nashville-cops-hate-stick-figure-sex-first-amendment/16954

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 6:16am

      Re:

      Wow, they even delivered an admission of “this is protected speech”. How often do you see American cops do a mea culpa like that?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 8:04am

      Re:

      They settled rather than allow a useful law be declared unconstitutional. This allows them to keep using it later if they NEED an excuse for pulling someone over and then doing the old drug-dog routine.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    D.C. Pathogen (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 6:24am

    Ban the bible!

    Lets Ban and burn that obscene book, for it says to go forth - be fruitful and multiply.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 7:14am

    Leash Cops

    "This law allows police officers to make that call subjectively"

    ____


    Cops have way too much discretionary authority!

    That is the immediate, practical danger across American law enforcement.

    Aside from the broad constitutional issues with this specific case, if a cop observes a 'possible' obscenity-law-violation -- he should take the alleged evidence to a judge ... and let a judge decide if a law violation exists.
    There is certainly no urgency to immediately/formally accuse a citizen of a crime... by a street cop with a low level of legal training.

    Overall, cops should not be able to take immediate legal action (arrest/citation) against people unless there is clear & present danger to persons or property. These decisions should be made by highly qualified judicial officers (court judges).

    Cops do not & should not have the "judicial" powers of sub poena & arrest. Genuine judicial officers do have these constitutional powers via court warrants.

    At the founding of the U.S., it was unheard of for constables/police to arrest or sub poena (issue citations) people without a court warrant. Cops had no more authority than normal citizens (and any citizen could forcibly intervene to stop immediate criminal dangers, but was also personally liable for any mistakes).
    Modern cops are mini-judges, mostly immune to personal liability for their actions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 7:52am

      Re: Leash Cops

      "Modern cops are mini-judges, mostly immune to personal liability for their actions."

      We did ask for this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 11:41am

        Re: Re: Leash Cops

        Wrong

        Maybe you did

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 3:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Leash Cops

          Do you see anyone out there protesting the over reach of the Police?

          Maybe just a paltry few? Politicians and Judge still get voted in for being "tough on crime".

          Yea... we DID ASK FOR IT!

          Don't get pissed off just because I told the truth. I assure you that you asked for it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 5:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Leash Cops

            So out of curiosity, how much time have you spent protesting abuses of power by the police? Your votes, were they all for anti-'tough on crime' candidates? Or is this another one of those 'The general public is to blame, and you are to blame, but I'm not because reasons'?

            Also, there's just a wee bit of a difference between voting for someone who claims to be 'tough on crime', and voting for someone who champions the idea that police should be able to ignore the law whenever they feel like it.

            Just because someone votes for the first it does not follow that they are responsible when the second occurs, in the same way that if I hire someone to clean my house, and they rob me instead it would be just a little absurd to say "Well you asked for it, what did you think they meant when they said they'd 'clean your house'?"

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2017 @ 8:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Leash Cops

            Yea... we DID ASK FOR IT!

            Speak for yourself, asshole.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 7:21am

    The police dropped the case

    Metro Nashville PD will pay the costs of the lawsuit, and submit to a declaratory judgment that Owens’ “Making My Family” decal was protected speech under the First Amendment.
    When asked for a quote, lead counsel Daniel Horwitz provided Fault Lines with the following:
    “The statute under which Mr. Owens was cited is facially unconstitutional. Hard-core censorship of this nature also has no place in a free society. We’re ecstatic about this victory, and we appreciate Metro’s prompt concession that the position taken by Mr. Owens’ arresting officer was nakedly meritless.”

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 7:26am

    Sounds more like....

    ...the driver annoyed the cop who pulled him over, so the cop cited him for everything he could find.

    I got enough "dirty windshield", "License plate too low to the ground" "obstructed view", etc tickets as a teenager that I eventually learned to NOT annoy a cop when he pulls you over.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bynkman (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 7:49am

    Dangling testicles from trailer hitches

    Pickup drivers who have fake testicles hanging from trailer hitches should be pulled over and fined, by the word of this law. And no doubt, in Tennessee, there's a large amount of trailer hitches with them. But I highly doubt it has happened. Definitely selectively enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    dddimwrong (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 7:58am

    I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

    "To prevent the showing of "obscene or patently offensive movies" in vehicles if the content could be viewed outside of the vehicle."

    I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex. Yep I'm in the back seat with my grandchildren and we are at a long light and they ask me what the lady on the tv's in the car next to us is doing and what is being done to her. I don't care what you watch in the privacy of your home or out of the sight of my grandchildren. However I don't think I should have to explain anal sex and blowjob's to my grandchildren. There needs to be some sort of restraint.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 8:11am

      Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

      That could be potentially justified under "obscene", which is a(n ill-defined) category given special treatment under the law for such purposes.

      The quoted law doesn't limit itself to "obscene" movies, however; it also extends the same prohibition in regard to "patently offensive" ones.

      If they dropped the "or patently offensive" from the statute, there would probably be considerably less room to challenge Constitutionality, given established Supreme Court precedent.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      D.C. Pathogen (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 8:37am

      Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

      If you can't handle questions from your grandchildren, maybe you should let someone else watch them. For their safety and yours.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        dddimwrong (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 9:55am

        Re: Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

        Come back when you can understand the english language. I didn't say I couldn't handle the questions,I said, "I don't think I should have to explain".

        In the mean time while you learn how to read, go outside and find a big stick and cram it up your ***!!!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 10:24am

          Re: Re: Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

          "I don't think I should have to explain".

          So parenting is hard and you can't be bothered with it? Well, tough shit. Keep your dick in your pants next time (or your legs closed if you're female) and don't breed, if you're not up to the task.

          It's not up to the rest of the world to do your fucking job for you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          D.C. Pathogen (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

          Wow, with a mouth like that, you should really stay away from those young'uns. Try to keep your anal fantasies to yourself when its visitation day, good luck and please remember the golden rule.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Wendy Cockcroft, 15 Mar 2017 @ 6:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

            Gentlemen, please!

            First of all, why do people feel this exhibitionist need to watch hardcore porn in public? "On the road" is a public place, even if you're in your car. Again, why watch porn in public?

            Secondly, what is the value of promoting a me-first society in which the most obnoxious people barf their putrid fantasies wherever they will, and the rest of us are obliged to step carefully around the metaphorical pavement pizzas?

            Thirdly, now you know why so many people voted Trump. He's authoritarian with authoritarians on staff in every department (that he can be bothered to staff). They're hoping he will do away with things like this. I can promise you that if you do enough to annoy even the most moderate people, sooner or later they will push back and hard. The Constitutionality of the laws being passed will almost certainly be challenged, but considering how conservative many judges are, can you be certain that it'll be upheld?

            Finally, laws are passed to solve problems, whether real or imaginary. They're real to the people passing them. Stop giving authoritarians a reason to create a slippery slope that undermines my personal freedom just because you can't wait till you get home to watch your damn porn!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 8:39am

      Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

      While I fully agree with you, I can't help but wonder: How did you know her name was Debbie?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        dddimwrong (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 9:57am

        Re: Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

        I didn't now her name actually, I picked Debbie just because it was easy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 11:32am

          Re: Re: Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

          Are you trying to suggest that Debbie's are more likely to star in porn that people who watch porn in their cars enjoy?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Eldakka (profile), 19 Mar 2017 @ 6:26pm

        Re: Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

        How did you know her name was Debbie?

        Because he knows the name of his own daughter.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 11:43am

      Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

      What story about a bumper sticker were you reading? I do not think I was reading the same one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 11:50am

      Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

      I get offended seeing Heterosexual Public Displays of Affection, should there be a law?

      While I agree watching porn in the car isn't very bright, society shouldn't have to wrap the entire world in nerf to avoid awkward events that happen.

      The answer of they are doing things only adults should be doing, oh look over there a blue jay. If you can't distract a 5 and 7 yr old in 10 yrs you're in trouble. You shouldn't really go in depth about it being anal sex and blowjob's because that really isn't age appropriate.

      You can't control other people and demanding that there should be a law leads us to everyone getting their own pet projects codified into law. Like the FL lawmaker who got a law passed making it illegal to pump a pumpkin, and was promptly busted porking a pumpkin in public.

      I've seen the entire spectrum of stupid, like the woman who called the cops and demanded a man inside his own home who didn't realize he could be seen early in the morning be arrested as a sex fiend because her child was scared for life. Yes her little boy saw a penis through a window, that she drew attention to and flipped out about (such therapy bills in the future). He was getting a cup of coffee, not masturbating and saying hey little kid want some candy. She could have gotten his attention, left a note later or all sorts of other things but to freak out because a your child of the same sex saw a naked body says something about our victorian upbringing.

      Stick figures on a window, are apples and your example is oranges. Sorry if not allowing the state to stifle rights sometimes leaves things ookie for you, but this case was an overly broad stupid thing that shouldn't have existed except for voters screaming the powers that be should do something, as long as its never used against them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 15 Mar 2017 @ 7:07am

        Re: Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

        **I get offended seeing Heterosexual Public Displays of Affection, should there be a law?**

        I was wondering when somebody would bring that up, but I was thinking of the depiction of a cisgender hetero two-parent family being offensive. One day someone will have a raving freak over something like that, mark my words. That said, you've got a point; public displays of affection can and do make people feel uncomfortable sometimes. What do we do about this? Pretend we don't know each other until we're alone in a locked room or slobber all over each other regardless? A little restraint goes a long way, people.


        **While I agree watching porn in the car isn't very bright, society shouldn't have to wrap the entire world in nerf to avoid awkward events that happen.

        The answer of they are doing things only adults should be doing, oh look over there a blue jay. If you can't distract a 5 and 7 yr old in 10 yrs you're in trouble. You shouldn't really go in depth about it being anal sex and blowjob's because that really isn't age appropriate.**

        It's not the blue jay that will stick in the kids' minds. I'm friendly with a social worker who tells me porn is wreaking havoc on kids by giving them unrealistic ideas about sexual relationships, sexual practices, and their own bodies. It's not a cotton-wool-wrapping thing to ask people to view porn at home and keep it the hell away from kids.


        **You can't control other people and demanding that there should be a law leads us to everyone getting their own pet projects codified into law. Like the FL lawmaker who got a law passed making it illegal to pump a pumpkin, and was promptly busted porking a pumpkin in public.**

        True, fair enough. But is it reasonable to ask each other to be considerate? I don't care whether (rhetorical) you and the pumpkin are a one night stand or you're together forever, get a sodding room!


        **I've seen the entire spectrum of stupid, like the woman who called the cops and demanded a man inside his own home who didn't realize he could be seen early in the morning be arrested as a sex fiend because her child was scared for life. Yes her little boy saw a penis through a window, that she drew attention to and flipped out about (such therapy bills in the future). He was getting a cup of coffee, not masturbating and saying hey little kid want some candy. She could have gotten his attention, left a note later or all sorts of other things but to freak out because a your child of the same sex saw a naked body says something about our victorian upbringing.**

        Net curtains are a good, good thing. That said, the houses must be very close together — or was Junior using binoculars or something? Obligatory Porky's quote (a token of my misspent youth — I wanted to know what all the boys were giggling about) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/quotes


        **Stick figures on a window, are apples and your example is oranges. Sorry if not allowing the state to stifle rights sometimes leaves things ookie for you, but this case was an overly broad stupid thing that shouldn't have existed except for voters screaming the powers that be should do something, as long as its never used against them.**

        Agreed in full. No argument there.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    john Katos (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 8:40am

    Re:Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

    If they leave patently offensive in wouldn't every Adam Sandler movie (other than Happy Gilmore) cause the driver to get ticketed? And, not to mention, every Rob Schneider movie!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mermaldad (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 8:54am

    Deeply offensive and obviously obscene

    While some may find the "making my family" image obscene, but I'd argue that the image of the "traditional" stick figure family is more obscene, because while "making my family" depicts a single sexual act, the traditional one implies three, no, seven sexual acts since every living creature depicted there is the result of sexual reproduction. Seven sexual acts is getting into porn movie territory.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Digitari, 14 Mar 2017 @ 9:19am

    Re:Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

    Maybe an explanation of privacy is in order first; There are already distracted driver laws.

    How big do you think those screens are?

    I ponder whether or not this is a "fake" argument. because if you are behind the car in question adults are taller than children in automobiles and would cover most of the screen from the rear. but I can see this as being possible like winning the lottery or getting hit by a meteor having intelligent legislators.
    (I do recall a story to this effect a few years ago, I do not recall the specifics, but I don't think it was a built in DVD player)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 10:23am

      Re: Re:Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

      Distracted-driver laws are irrelevant if the people watching the problematic videos are not the driver.

      There are probably vehicles which are exceptions, and I don't claim to be an expert on this subject or to have conducted an exhaustive survey, but every single in-car display screen I've seen which had the ability to display real-time video playback was positioned above/behind/between the driver's and passenger's seats - so as to be visible to the people in the rear seat(s), but not the ones up front.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      dddimwrong (profile), 14 Mar 2017 @ 10:41am

      Re: Re:Re: I gather Tim is okay with a 5 and a 7 year old seeing Debbie give a blowjob while getting anal sex

      I never said we were in the car "behind" anything. I used the word "next to" we along side of a smaller car and we were in a large SUV and it was very clear what was going on.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 9:41am

    'This is why laws need to be crafted with an eye on the unintended consequences as well as their compliance with the Constitution.'

    even more so, it shows that those who want to try to bring this kind of law in need to be much more mindful of the Constitution and of peoples rights of 'Free Speech'. if not, any single elected person can just keep introducing laws that suits them, ie, throwing everything under the bus, just because their views are not the same as everyone else. then those who go to the polls need to be much more mindful of which friggin' idiot they are voting in, before it's too late!! mind you, the USA is fast becoming not just a Police State, but one where only the government and elected officials have any rights at all!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ntlgnce, 14 Mar 2017 @ 1:58pm

    My question would be.

    The sticker drivers were "cited" for the use of the stickers,
    Why does this have to have a fine? Cop pulls them over, says it's a porn sticker, and to remove it. Driver says buddy stuck it on there as a joke. Peals it off and still gets a 50$ fine.
    There should only be a fine, IF the person is a repeat offender. NOT first offence, as what some see as "against" the law may not offend others. Like the top pic above, the two stick figures, So what the male is helping the female sit on his lap, just like Santa, where is the porn in that? ITS Tussy American's is what it is trying to create a world that is all roses. If they can't handle the BAD then they should stay at home or move to the friggen middle of nowhere. America is supposed to be about freedom, Not about others telling you what you can and can't do. I hate to tell these "church ladies" that when you go out in public your going to see things that you don't want to see, your going to hear things that you don't want to hear. ITS PUBLIC.. Pushing your "the human body must be covered up, is like telling the Islamic ladies that they MUST cover their hair when they go out in public. And EVERYONE is BLIND to this.. Seriously, I sit and watch the news, and hear about how some women are made to cover their hair, and they march in protest to "change the world", without even realizing the true scope of the issue. 99.9% ( just a guess) of the population of the planet is forced to "cover their hair" with clothes. They try to change rules and laws, yet get upset when someone tries to change the same law that is requiring people in public to wear clothes.. If we all went naked every where, that would become the norm, and people would get used to it, ( FACT PROVEN BY HISTORY).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bobobolobolobobo, 14 Mar 2017 @ 2:57pm

    Cool, this sticker law sounds like a powerful tool for law enforcement to pull over whoever they if there's a sticker on the car they can manufacture butthurt over.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Châu, 14 Mar 2017 @ 4:36pm

    Maybe this help fix this problem:
    1. all laws have automatic deadline, after 3 years or 5 years terminate.
    2. all laws also must pass people, people can approve laws, but require than 80%
    population accept law (can reject law by not voting)
    3. Congress or parliament is part time job only, max 10 hours per week, except for big emergency (president/prime minister/other leader must approve).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.