Important: Does the First Amendment protect “truck nuts”?

posted at 9:15 pm on August 3, 2011 by Allahpundit

You can keep ObamaCare, the Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. As far as I’m concerned, truck nuts are the only constitutional game in town.

Threshold question: If it’s okay to ban these things as indecent symbols of American culture at its seediest, can we also ban The Waffle House?

On July 5, Virginia Tice, 65, from Bonneau, S.C. pulled her pickup truck into a local gas station with red, fake testicles dangling from the trailer hitch. The town’s police chief, Franco Fuda, pulled up and asked her to remove the plastic testicles.

When she refused, he wrote her a $445 ticket saying that she violated South Carolina’s obscene bumper sticker law.

The South Carolina code of laws reads, “a sticker, decal, emblem, or device is indecent … in a patently offensive way, as determined by contemporary community standards, sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body.”…

[Tice's lawyer] will argue whether these large, red, plastic testicles are “really an accurate depiction of a human body part.”

Believe it or not, this isn’t an easy legal question in the abstract. It’s difficult for a state to ban expression as “obscene” under Supreme Court precedent — and “indecent” and “obscene” aren’t the same thing — but the Court will give legislatures a bit of leeway so long as they’re not too aggressive. E.g., this famous case, in which a plurality of the Rehnquist Court found that a state could require strippers to wear pasties and G-strings in order to make them comply with a general ban on public nudity. If South Carolina demands that truck nuts be covered by truck jock straps, presumably they’re good to go. The question is, is the current statute too aggressive by providing for an outright prohibition? Law prof and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh says yep, the law’s dead on arrival. The problem isn’t the “contemporary community standards” element of the statute — presumably truck testicles are A-OK with South Carolina juries — but the fact that it doesn’t meet the Supreme Court’s test for obscenity. To be “obscene” for First Amendment purposes, a form of expression has to appeal to the viewer’s prurient interest, i.e. be sexually arousing. And no one’s getting aroused by truck nuts. Except maybe regulars at The Waffle House.

One of Volokh’s commenters offers this meditation on the latest threat to free speech: “First they came for the Truck Nutz, and I said nothing because my truck had no nuts.” Exit question: How many of the HA faithful have their F-150s fitted out in vehicular testicular style? Be honest.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

The woman was probably just a hateful fem who used these to display her violent threat to men to cut them off. What’s next, plastic bloody breasts sticking out of the hood as headlights?

ray on August 4, 2011 at 6:56 AM

But people have the right to be dirtbags.

portlandon on August 4, 2011 at 12:35 AM

So, no legal limit? Any and all imagery on my truck? XXX decals and DVDs playing? That’s all good?

portlandon on August 4, 2011 at 12:38 AM

A fair action to take in the situation. My point though; if you think they have the right, what right do you have to mention anything about your children? By mentioning it and causing them to stop using that language, you’ve infringed on their right to speak that way. They either have a right to speak that way or not.

hawkdriver on August 4, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Rights are never disconnected from responsibilities. When we try to break that connection we create confusion and, often, anger. Laws serve as both protector and teacher and should only be passed when too many people refuse to act responsibly or endanger others. Truck nuts are rude, stupid and serve to coarsen our society, but I’m just not at the “oughta be a law” stage on this. Not that I would never get there however. If I ever see a full-color, formed fiberglass female genitalia rolling down the highway I may marvel at the artistic skill of the creator while calling for him to be jailed or fined. Your mileage may vary. (Note: modified due to first post ending up in moderation limbo for use of V word – I know the rule is “do not resubmit”, but I don’t trust it)

SKYFOX on August 4, 2011 at 6:57 AM

Exit question: How many of the HA faithful have their F-150s fitted out in vehicular testicular style?

I have neither the F150 vehicular….thusly nor the testicular.

I do find them hilarious tho’.

ted c on August 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM

Okay, I’ll admit it; I had truck nuts. Then I got married. Now I have no nuts at all…

RedSoxNation on August 4, 2011 at 7:35 AM

So crass sexually explicity vulgarity is acceptable but good old welcome sexual arousal is bad?

These laws are almost as consistent as the abortion/crash killing of a pre-born infant; one time it’s “just so much fetal tissue”-the next, even at an earlier gestation date, it’s a precious human being destroyed (depending upon who kills it determines it humanity)

Idiots!

Don L on August 4, 2011 at 7:38 AM

This tears it between us. Nobody insults the Waffle House on my watch.

scatbug on August 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM

Now you’ve done it!

Since reading this article, I have been trying to not visualize the next logical step for Bars all across the country…’Beer Nuts’.

Uniblogger on August 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM

I don’t want to start the “real men” issue, but SC seems kind of sissified when compared to upstate NY. I once saw a Old Dodge truck driving tourist-filled Lake Placid’s main street with a bear’s head over the normal ram hood ornament. Its mouth was fully open, bearing huge teeth and prepared to eat anything that got in its way -to the chagrin of the sophisticated tourists.

I would guess that SC could at least produce a few wild boar hood ornaments -sans testicles, of course.

Don L on August 4, 2011 at 7:48 AM

This tears it between us. Nobody insults the Waffle House on my watch.

scatbug on August 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM

Me too. Everyone knows that the real dregs of society hang out at the White Castle. Jeesh!

BierManVA on August 4, 2011 at 7:48 AM

Hard to say where the dividing line for public sexual display is. Saw A guy once with a t-shirt that read ENJOY GOOD HEALTH-EAT YOUR HONEY. Technically there is nothing wrong with that caption but we all know it’s true meaning.

Where do you draw the line? Example somebody paints the back of a bus to resemble a giant vagina. Think of all the cars crashing, trying to drive into it!

MaiDee on August 4, 2011 at 7:51 AM

What’s with the attack on waffle house? Who doesn’t like waffle house?

gator70 on August 4, 2011 at 7:55 AM

What I want to know is (a) what’s up with a 65 year old woman driving a pickup with a rubber sack, and (b) how did that horses ass get to be police chief?

Why not just go all the way and outlaw novelty stores? Sheesh!

ElectricPhase on August 4, 2011 at 8:08 AM

I think it’s disgusting but a right nonetheless. If the haters can burn the Flag and call it freedom of expression & show Jesus with piss on him, then truck-nuts pale in comparison.

Just say they are bull nuts, not a human feature, way too big, and move on. In FL we see these quite often as trucks make up 65% +/- of the vehicles on the road.

J will buy some or make my own immediately and place them, swinging with every turn, on my truck asap.

Ris4victory on August 4, 2011 at 8:13 AM

What’s with the Waffle House hate?

Sinner on August 4, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Here are a few data points to keep in mind.

The town of Bonneau, South Carolina has a population (2000 Census) of 354 people in a total of 156 households.

Whatever else this is, it is not representative of a trend in American law.

MikeA on August 4, 2011 at 8:25 AM

Every time I come upon some jagoff with those stupid things hanging off his bumper I have to squelch the desire to jump out of my car at the next red light, run up, and kick them as hard as I can.

Dukeboy01 on August 4, 2011 at 8:32 AM

First they came for the children’s lemondade stands
..on to truck nuts…

Is there not enough crime for these people to be working on? Perhaps they should all be part time and go get a second job.

Total waste of time and money.

bridgetown on August 4, 2011 at 8:39 AM

oh, and what about the little cartoon of Calvin I see on so many trucks peeing on ..whatever..
Pull ‘em over!
sheesh

bridgetown on August 4, 2011 at 8:39 AM

First off, lay off Waffle House. There’s no better breakfast available anywhere. Second, if truck nuts are obscene, then they need to ban the bovine and porcine pavilions at all state fairs. Have you seen the cojones on some of those beasts? They make truck nutz look like skin tags. And all right there in the open for little kiddies to see.

rivlax on August 4, 2011 at 8:43 AM

Too many laws already and far too many lawyers. Washington is composed of lawyers who create ever more laws to keep themselves busy and wealthy.

On the other hand, I can’t see my 76 year old mother putting them on her RAV4. She’s way too classy for something that stupid. Also considerate of much younger mothers on the road having to explain it. Another example of “just ’cause you can doesn’t mean you should.” Along with freedom comes PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and knowing you’re not the most important person in the world. What’s next? I don’t want to be banned so use your own imagination.

adamsmith on August 4, 2011 at 8:43 AM

[Tice's lawyer] will argue whether these large, red, plastic testicles are “really an accurate depiction of a human body part.”

Really? From the picture, aside from being bright red, they look more the size of something you would find on a horse or bull.

Count to 10 on August 4, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Truck Nutz are just are just a way of saying “my truck has balls” right? WHy not just go the extra mile and put a huge pen!s right on the hitch tongue with the giant balls? That way no one dare doubt that that truck is manly!

Anyone here see Idiocracy? The monster truck scene where one truck IS just a giant phallus? I guess that’s what’s next right?

Free Indeed on August 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM

I find Truck Nutz to be obnoxious, but I have no right to be protected from things I find to be obnoxious. And, as other posters have pointed out, they are a representation of an animal’s body parts, not a human’s.

Haiku Guy on August 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Haiku Guy on August 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM

How do you feel about laws against baggy/saggy pants?

MJBrutus on August 4, 2011 at 9:00 AM

OK. So now, who’s going to be the first to market the “Truck jock strap?”

JayVee on August 4, 2011 at 9:02 AM

rivlax on August 4, 2011 at 8:43 AM

Don’t give ‘em any bright ideas…

The Fancy Shapes – Pants on a Horse

Haiku Guy on August 4, 2011 at 9:05 AM

She should move to Rock Creek, MT. The town hosts an annual Testy Festy. Rocky mountain oysters are the main item on the menu.

Kissmygrits on August 4, 2011 at 9:08 AM

I guess everyone is entitled to be offended by anything in this day and age. I am offended at Obama…does that mean I can write him a ticket?

search4truth on August 4, 2011 at 9:13 AM

I like to spray paint them blue when I see them.

JeffWeimer on August 4, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Leave Waffle House alone. It’s a great place to eat with great coffee. I’ll give up my Waffle House when they pry my cold dead fingers off the door.

abcurtis on August 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM

The govt has greater powers over transportation because they license vehicles and drivers. So it’s like having to go thru TSA at an airport — do what they say so you can go where you want.

Paul-Cincy on August 4, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Maybe Officer Fuda has blueballs?

bloviator on August 4, 2011 at 9:39 AM

So having a scrot hanging from your truck is not a gay thing, right? I mean, you have a precious display of male genitalia swinging from your vehicle. That’s totally a hetero thing, right?

somewhatconcerned on August 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM

I just have a Prius vagina…*sigh*

ronsfi on August 4, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Truck nuts aren’t obscenity.

Period.

molonlabe28 on August 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Don L on August 4, 2011 at 7:48 AM

Lake Placid’s Thirsty Moose bar is one of my favs… have more “Miracle on Ice” original stuff than just about anywhere else, great food/beer and staff.

Odie1941 on August 4, 2011 at 9:58 AM

My wife has mine hanging from her rear view mirror and she never got a ticket for it.

Akzed on August 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM

If I show my balls in public, is that good?

If I take a picture of my balls, blow it up (the picture, not my balls), and paste it to the truck bed, is that OK?

If I make a replica of my balls and hang them from my trailer hitch, is that OK?

I think it’s OK to Ban the Balls.

faraway on August 4, 2011 at 10:00 AM

It takes a really special type of moron to hang these “decorations” on his vehicle.

whatcat on August 4, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Ok although most of you probably wont agree I say my opinion for what its worth-nothing. My son got a pair of these nuts as a gag birthday gift from his sister. He’s always bragging on chevys and knocking just about every other brand(hes 16). Maybe there is something wrong with me since most people on this board probably dont agree but I think there is nothing wrong with nuts on a truck or any other privately owned vehicle. There is as much vulgarity in truck nuts as there is in Lady Gaga’s outfits, or locally we have Kuntz Drive In Diners and of course HOOTERS.

Banning this kind of stuff is something a liberal nanny statist would do, you know just cause you may not agree with it, just cause it may offend someone, somewhere, and just cause they can, because they think they know whats good for you.

canditaylor68 on August 4, 2011 at 10:14 AM

They offend you. So what? If you’re really that bothered, you’d exercise your own testicular fortitude, go up to the owner of the truck and note how dumb they look. You wouldn’t be hiding behind the government’s skirts pretending to be offended.

FWIW, I think they do look stupid. But unless we’re ready to require livestock and pets to wear underpants, I don’t think artificial plastic testicles on trucks meet the standard for obscenity.

GalosGann on August 4, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Every time I come upon some jagoff with those stupid things hanging off his bumper I have to squelch the desire to jump out of my car at the next red light, run up, and kick them as hard as I can.

Dukeboy01 on August 4, 2011 at 8:32 AM

THAT would make an awesomely funny movie scene. Betty White gets cut off in traffic by road ragin’ truck nuts exposed F150. Follows to the Home Depot, gets out and gives “the nuts” a swift kick in the, well, nuts… Use the sound effects of striking an anvil mixed with hard punch of a punching bag for a good old fashion slapstick belly laugh.

starman on August 4, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Could be worse, OBAMA 2012 bumper sticker.

Cindy Munford on August 4, 2011 at 10:35 AM

THAT would make an awesomely funny movie scene. Betty White gets cut off in traffic by road ragin’ truck nuts exposed F150. Follows to the Home Depot, gets out and gives “the nuts” a swift kick in the, well, nuts… Use the sound effects of striking an anvil mixed with hard punch of a punching bag for a good old fashion slapstick belly laugh.

starman on August 4, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Love it. Can we have the driver falling out of the cab of his truck, grabbing his crotch in pain?

Extrafishy on August 4, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Castrate the trucks!

Beo on August 4, 2011 at 10:41 AM

What’s more obscene than “truck nuts”? A 65-year-old woman driving around with “truck nuts.” Ewwwww.

And we wonder why young people today are so crass.

CJ on August 4, 2011 at 10:43 AM

If they go after the truck nuts, are they going to take away the nude silhouettes next?

Snaqwels on August 4, 2011 at 10:45 AM

And we wonder why young people today are so crass.
CJ on August 4, 2011 at 10:43 AM

You mean to imply the First Amendment right for kids to wear their pants down around their knees in school should not be respected? Why, you…you…you nanny state fascist, you!!

whatcat on August 4, 2011 at 10:49 AM

If they go after the truck nuts, are they going to take away the nude silhouettes next?

Snaqwels on August 4, 2011 at 10:45 AM

It’s only logical that they go after these obviously-suggestive trucks!!

landlines on August 4, 2011 at 11:10 AM

I have LESS of a problem with truck nuts than I DO with giving police agencies more MONEY and more POWER to enforce a ban on them.

Seriously – our Police forces have grown into the “troops quartered amongst us” that was so feared by the Founding Fathers. They don’t consider themselves civilians and, for the record – the only city in the Colonies that had a police force in the early days of this nation was Philidelphia – and it was a very small one.

But they grew … and grew … and when people quit breaking laws – they invented NEW laws for people to break so the police could enforce them and justify their existence.

People didn’t hang rubber balls from their wagons – back in the day.

They DO today, because of a slow degeneration in morality – however, it’s not the job of the police to enforce morality. In fact – if you get the police out of this – then you’ll see a lot more “peer pressure” to not do these kinds of things.

Laws! They suck.

HondaV65 on August 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM

What have you got against Waffle House? $2.49 for a waffle, half as much as IHOP, and tastier!

Okay, so there are a lot of ex-cons serving the waffles. Well, ex-cons gotta work, too.

Meryl Yourish on August 4, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Let’s just get to the point. Without having to address your notion of the entire world being a farm.

Are you saying nothing is too obscene as to be deserving of censorship?

hawkdriver on August 4, 2011 at 6:14 AM

Nope, XXX videos showing to the public would exceed the bounds of decency.

But when you’ve got something that is readily viewable in numerous public areas and you want to ban one specific example of it but leave the rest alone… how is that consistent?

Bull testicles are the sort of thing you can see in a lot of places; why are you looking to ban one instance of this?

If bull testicles are offensive to the point of justifying hiding them from view… how do we do that exactly?

I think wearing a bikini to church is inappropriate… but if the church doesn’t ask them to leave I’m not going to demand a law be written because I think it’s wrong. And as you can see people in this apparel at the pool or beach I don’t think outlawing it in this one instance is rational or consistent.

gekkobear on August 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Well, could it be that the cop found them offensive cause her nuts where bigger then his ?
If it is held to be illegal then where to draw the line. I saw a chick’s car that had false eyelashes on the headlamps. I thought it cute. But some one may find them offensive. As far as the nuts go I think they are crass and still funny.

ColdWarrior57 on August 4, 2011 at 11:42 AM

I think wearing a bikini to church is inappropriate…

gekkobear on August 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Would damn sure make the homilies more interesting. Oh, you didn’t mean the priest, did you?

SKYFOX on August 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM

A visualization

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mn_3QGxq-Q

campfreddy on August 4, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Just becuase you don’t like it doesn’t mean it is illegal, or that it should be illegal just becuase you don’t like it.

Good Lt on August 4, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Seriously – our Police forces have grown into the “troops quartered amongst us” that was so feared by the Founding Fathers. They don’t consider themselves civilians and, for the record – the only city in the Colonies that had a police force in the early days of this nation was Philidelphia – and it was a very small one.

But they grew … and grew … and when people quit breaking laws – they invented NEW laws for people to break so the police could enforce them and justify their existence.

People didn’t hang rubber balls from their wagons – back in the day.

They DO today, because of a slow degeneration in morality – however, it’s not the job of the police to enforce morality. In fact – if you get the police out of this – then you’ll see a lot more “peer pressure” to not do these kinds of things.

Laws! They suck.

HondaV65 on August 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM

This x 1000! (that’s 1000 factorial)

Yesterday a SWAT team raided a dairy cooperative in California, arrested the owners, and trashed the place. The crime? “Conspiring” to sell raw milk. Link here.

Truck nuts aren’t the problem. Cops getting way too big for their britches is the problem. (And to all the honest cops at HA, I say, God bless you, and please stay safe.)

Mary in LA on August 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM

I don’t like seeing Truck Nutz (I have three pre-teen daughters), but they’re a fad, and like other fads, they’ll disappear sooner or later.

Ward Cleaver on August 4, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Hey, if people can take images of the great Calvin and show him urinating, then anything is fair game.

Free Calvin first!

reaganaut on August 4, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Don’t be hatin’ on Waffle House!

Good food, fast, friendly service, and reasonable prices. Great on a road trip with the kids.

They’re a great slice of Americana.

I guess that wouldn’t appeal to your New Yorkyness, though, would it, Allah?

I lived in New York for two years and loved it, and adore New Yorkers.

Except when they are being as provincial as you are.

Alana on August 4, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Do your truck nuts hang low?
Do they wobble to and fro?
Can you tie ‘em in a knot?
Can you tie ‘em in a bow?
Can you throw ‘em o’er your shoulder
Like a regimental (or continental) soldier
Do your truck nuts hang low?

Do your truck nuts flip-flop?
Can you use them as a mop?
Are they stringy at the bottom?
Are they curly at the top?
Can you use them for a swatter?
Can you use them for a blotter?
Do your truck nuts flip-flop?

Kensington on August 4, 2011 at 12:48 PM

To paraphrase the great Jim Gaffigan, Waffle House is like a truck stop bathroom where they also serve you waffles.

Kensington on August 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Cops getting way too big for their britches is are the problem. (And to all the honest cops at HA, I say, God bless you, and please stay safe.)

Mary in LA on August 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Grammar fail. I blame decaf. :-P

Mary in LA on August 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Let the states decide what crazy laws they want to enact. This has nothing to do with the Const. or BOR.
10th Ammd. let the people who govern themselves votes on laws that suit them.
Don’t like it?
MOVE. It does suck. But that’s the way it is.
Look at city ordinances that ban smoking. This is no different.

People who drive F-150s are worse than liberals. Truly, truly terrible people.
Go to Hell, all of you.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM
I hope you are kidding. If not you’re a worse douche.

CW on August 3, 2011 at 10:16 PM

I hope it is kidding. Bcs if you are not kidding AH-you are a suprmeme d-bag.
I drive pickups around the ranch for a real reason. To haul things like stock trailers with animals, a piece of haying equipment, etc, or drive in the pasture fixing fence, etc.
Pickups have a real purpose actually. And I use them for their intended purposes. As a workhorse.
So if you are not kidding: BITE MY AZZ.

Badger40 on August 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Badger40 on August 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM

I’m pretty sure Aquateen Hungerforce was kidding. The tagline “Go to Hell, all of you” is from this most righteous rant by Jonah Goldberg of NRO.

Mary in LA on August 4, 2011 at 1:36 PM

On HWY 21 almost to Mandan ND is a large lifesize black angus bull plywood cutout on the hillside. Its large scrotum is painted blue. I don’t find it offensive.
And this last winter, someone had taken a dead frozen coyote & clamped its jaws around the tail of the cutout bull. I bet PETA folks woulda gone wild over that one. LMAO!

Badger40 on August 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Mary in LA on August 4, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Thanx. I figgered that was the case. Some folk’s dry humor escapes me.

Badger40 on August 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Something having far more to do with actual political free speech — you know, the kind that is specifically protected by the Constitution…..

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/aug/04/other-products-poke-fun-at-variety-of-targets/

Here is a state legislator getting a University of Tennessee bookstore to remove mints with a label critical of Obama.

But let’s turn public display of imitation bull testicles into a First Amendment touchstone. Even though I still don’t see why this is more a free speech issue than laws against public indecency. Isn’t going nude just as much free speech?

didymus on August 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Explain these to a 7 year old daughter sitting up front with you when she asks what’s that dad? On the other hand she sees them on every bull in any pasture on the roadside.
However the bull testicles represent nature whereas the numbnutz dragging their morals on their bumper are making a personal statement (of some kind).

FireBlogger on August 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Explain these to a 7 year old daughter sitting up front with you when she asks what’s that dad?

FireBlogger on August 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Tell her, “Those are idiot tags, sweetie.”

:-)

Mary in LA on August 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM

I think it’s classless, but shouldn’t be illegal, to have these on your vehicle. No, my Suburban doesn’t have any on it.

As to Waffle House- haven’t eaten there in years. Think I’ll have to visit one soon, to enjoy a meal in honor of a certain NY pundit.

:)

cs89 on August 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM

So let me get this straight.

It’s illegal to send a picture of testicles by a text message to a minor, irresponsible-uncouth-trashy between adults, but it’s “ok” to hang a 3D set from my truck for everyone of any age to see?

LEBA on August 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Obumer has a big jobs bus tour planned, on our dime of course,I say we start a little fundraiser to buy multiple sets of TruckNutz so his bus and the entire attendant entourage can be adorned with many copies. Since most of the companies he’s used for these photo-ops in the past have ended up laying off workers or going bankrupt or both soon after he left, the world needs to know just how much balls are required to claim these fundraisers are really part of his official duties at this point

djaces on August 4, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Well, how much like Liberals we’ve all become! Outrage over a set of bull balls hanging from a trailer hitch!

Where was your outrage when some wienie in New York decided it was OK to name a play the Vagina Monologues, as if something a vagina has to say is particularly compelling or astute? Or when the cooking shows on TV think it is cute nowadays to teach you how to make vagina shaped cupcakes for your parties???

Where was your outrage when the Supreme Court decided it was an invasion of some imaginary Right to Privacy to prevent a woman from killing her unborn child, and Liberals celebrate this fact and each and every abortion conducted today as some Victory for Freedom of Choice? Where was your outrage when the Churches amongst us decided it was wrong to ignore or deny poor people our money, and they then criticize our country for going to war to save oppressed people? So we MUST meddle in people’s affairs to do good for those who may or may not deserve it based on a pastor’s say so, but we don’t deserve to go to war to save other oppressed people from their tyrannous leaders in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, or Rwanda? (By the way, I don’t support war for benevolence’ sake either)

Where was your outrage when Frederick’s Catalogs and Victoria’s Secret advertisements with mostly naked female models became commonplace alongside those same country roads and city streets?

Where was your outrage when it became fashionable and a staple of Free Speech to allow teenage idiots to walk around with their trousers around their knees and their boxers exposed to the entire world, and “militants” to burn flags to make statements about their feelings, which were somehow more important than YOUR feelings about the same subjects?

Where was your outrage when you first saw women in Afghanistan being beaten to death for going out in public with a boyfriend who wasn’t their first cousin, or when you saw Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi claim our troops couldn’t win against a bunch of barefoot, backwards illiterate barbarians?

Where was your outrage when you saw our government spend far more than it made each year for the last 20-30+ years, and yet you would go bankrupt and have your possessions taken away by someone who doesn’t know you at all and who could care less how noble your struggles are to meet your payments each day if you did the same thing?

Where was your outrage when your tax money was spent to subsidize elephant dung images of the Virgin Mary, or urine covered crucifixes represented as “Art”? Or your government was used to demand that Catholic Charities be forced to pay health insurance plans to provide birth control drugs for women who worked for them, against the Church’s most basic specific and utterly religious beliefs?

Yes, I know most of you here WERE outraged at all these events over the last decades. Where did your outrage get you??? You stopped NONE of these things because you all wished to be seen as “reasonable” people. Your outrage can only be expressed so far because otherwise your viewpoint is ridiculed as unreasonable, or out of touch with mainstream values.

Where has Being Reasonable gotten you? Laughed at, spit upon, called names by your enemies, and beheaded by ugly illiterate barbarians. All because you express such outrage at the tackiness of symbols dangled from my trailer hitch, but can’t muster enough outrage to stop the daily misuse of your tax dollars and the cheapness with which far better Men and Women than us are treated when they are thrown into combat without a desire to complete the task and a plan to win Victory, simply because you all buy the mantra that “something must be done” to help “those poor people” somewhere, somehow, whether in Afghanistan, Libya, or the United States of America.

I’d prefer all of us reserve our outrage for the things which matter, or simply refuse to be cowed into accepting the stupidity and trashiness and false outrage inflicted on us by people who want to enslave us (Dhimmicrats and -or Liberals) or murder us (Islamists). Outrage over a man’s statement to the rest of the drivers out there that he has a sense of humor you don’t agree with, or that he is tired of being bullied by people who are lesser folks than he is not where your energies should be directed.

There are such figures as the Bull of the Woods, or Head of the Herd, Defender of the Faithful, or Leader of the People. Sometimes that person is loud, vulgar, and crass. They are unashamed to be so. And they are tired of “reasonable” people telling them what to do. Folks who hang bull balls from their truck may simply be making fun of something; may simply feel it is their right to be crass; or may find it deeply offensive that some nanny do gooder around them must always point out how loud, crass, and obnoxious they are, especially when they generally leave everyone else alone in their day to day dealings with people.

The fact that everyone here (most of whom I agree with wholeheartedly on other subjects) finds that what I hang on my truck is any of their business is what offends me the most on this subject. The cop had no RIGHT to issue that ticket. (A citation for an illegal or unconstitutional law just because it is the law is not a defense of injustice. So I have repeatedly been told that following an illegal order from a superior is also illegal and should be disobeyed.)

And not a one of us here has a RIGHT to complain about something that is a depiction of things found everyday in nature, and is, hopefully, permanently attached to 50% of the human race, and yet we have the audacity to claim on other more serious subjects of morality and law, that it isn’t our place to rock the boat, or make judgments….

The biggest bullshit part of this discussion is what we aren’t outraged over, and whom we give the benefit of the doubt to, everytime they try to legislate away our Freedom.

And, for the record, a 2003 Ford F-250 crewcab, long bed, that gets 10 mpg and has been filled up with dirt, rocks, timber, trash, supplies, household goods, and has been the scene of plenty of beer drinking and debauchery, and that gets me from here to there has ZERO bull balls hanging from the trailer hitch….. but this whole thread makes me want to go get a dozen different colors and change them out every day from now on…. just so you know NO ONE, not even you people, tells me what I can or cannot do with my own property….

Though you’ve known me as Subsunk, you can call me Bull from now on.

And you call yourselves Conservatives and Patriots?

Subsunk

Subsunk on August 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM

And this is a prime example of what I’m talking about in the Free Speech department. If you are outraged over a man putting a set of bull balls on his trailer hitch, why aren’t you equally outraged when something like this happens to someone exercising their freedom of speech and entrepreneurial spirit?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/04/satirical-mints-poking-fun-at-president-obama-yanked-from-tennessee-bookstore/

Subsunk

Subsunk on August 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Well, how much like Liberals we’ve all become! Outrage over a set of bull balls hanging from a trailer hitch!

LOL! If you can make that statement, you have a different definition of conservative than I do. You have the libertarian co-opted version. Yup, the tradition respecting those having balls hang from their truck or Conestoga…

Jefferson who made laws putting people into stocks overnight for lewd talk, no doubt championed the right of somebody to put balls on their carriages. Libertarians: Reinventing the American Heritage.

Axeman on August 4, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I understand that there is no right to not be offended but I’m not going to jump on the 1st amendment absolutist bandwagon everytime some high functioning retard decides to give polite society the finger with some vulgar display. I don’t think we’ve arrived at the Year of the Jackboot just because someone got their automotive s*x toy taken away.

austinnelly on August 4, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Why does this story make me think of this ?

J_Crater on August 4, 2011 at 5:32 PM

And I thought the mudflap girls were bad.

SukieTawdry on August 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Axeman on August 4, 2011 at 4:53 PM

The point is the government has no right to tell me what I can or can’t say, and no right to tell me what I do with my own property. The point is also that our neighbors have every right to voice their opinion for or against the display of vulgar or uncouth ornamentation. However, they had best be ready to accept the consequences of butting into someone else’s personal business. Because I don’t see a Helluva lot of average everyday folks standing up to a bunch of 1% motorcycle clubs and telling them that they don’t appreciate the tattoos on their arms of naked women….

To quote the bard: “The First Amendment protects you from the government. Not from me. You can say whatever disloyal, traitorus thing about my country you want to out there in public. But if you come within reach of me, I’ll exercise my right to give you a good old country ass whupping, by God.” And that IS a very conservative viewpoint.

Subsunk

Subsunk on August 4, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Well, how much like Liberals we’ve all become! Outrage over a set of bull balls hanging from a trailer hitch!

LOL! If you can make that statement, you have a different definition of conservative than I do. You have the libertarian co-opted version. Yup, the tradition respecting those having balls hang from their truck or Conestoga…
Axeman on August 4, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Indeed, if the bar for definition of “conservative” has been lowered so far that it actually matches the left’s stereotypical strawman conservative – i.e. a Simponesque Cletus Spuckler driving around with testicles hanging on his truck – then we have reached the point were words truly have no meaning at all.

whatcat on August 4, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Nope, XXX videos showing to the public would exceed the bounds of decency.

gekkobear on August 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM

I stopped right there.

So, you want limits, but “you” want to set, the limits. “You” decide what is vulgar. I see. My point from the beginning. Everyone has the line they draw.

We’re done.

hawkdriver on August 4, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Nope, XXX videos showing to the public would exceed the bounds of decency.

gekkobear on August 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM

I stopped right there.

So, you want limits, but “you” want to set, the limits. “You” decide what is vulgar. I see. My point from the beginning. Everyone has the line they draw.

We’re done.

hawkdriver on August 4, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Yup, I agree, I also caught that catch-22. If people want to show XXX porn videos downtown on a big screen public video, it’s their business. And if they want to have sex on the sidewalk, why not? Those darn nanny state types should let them!!

The ironic thing on this is how people complain about liberals reading new “rights” into the Constitution. Go figure.

whatcat on August 4, 2011 at 8:21 PM

The law, as written and as it has been adjudicated, is idiotic.

A naked woman most definitely meets the definition of obscene, in it appeals to a prurient interest, but guess what- I have seen many a naked persons in my life and was in no way aroused in any manner. So, it’s only obscene if the naked person is attractive, right?

TheBlueSite on August 4, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Cowboys drive pick-ups… They call them steed, stallion, bronc, trailmate, and other terms of endearment… Their trucks are their rides and their pals… Hanging bull nuts on them is very simply an act of affection and respect to show how much the ride is valued and considered to be as sentient as a steed or steer. There is nothing “obscene” or “perverted” about them. In fact…, as expression goes, these displays are as appropriate as they come. No pun intended. I just hope some “clever” Liberals don’t start making INAPPROPRIATE remarks like “The Tea Bag Drag”, which would be on par with calling TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party gathers “tea baggers”. Neither the TEA Partiers or the bull nuts are deserving of Liberal libel.

Rugged Individual on August 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Since this thread is still a’goin, time to go hog wild

Gohawgs on August 4, 2011 at 10:22 PM

And, for the record, a 2003 Ford F-250 crewcab, long bed, that gets 10 mpg and has been filled up with dirt, rocks, timber, trash, supplies, household goods, and has been the scene of plenty of beer drinking and debauchery, and that gets me from here to there has ZERO bull balls hanging from the trailer hitch….. but this whole thread makes me want to go get a dozen different colors and change them out every day from now on…. just so you know NO ONE, not even you people, tells me what I can or cannot do with my own property….

Though you’ve known me as Subsunk, you can call me Bull from now on.

And you call yourselves Conservatives and Patriots?

Subsunk

Subsunk on August 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Wow. Hate to disturb your righteous rant, but you’re leaving out a couple of issues. For one thing, what could be more natural than nudity? Yet public nudity is prohibited. What could be more natural than sexual reproduction? Yet if you do it in public, you’re subject to fines and arrest.

We should maximize freedom. But if you think your freedom is so absolute and without limit that you can do whatever you want with your own body and your own property, even in the public square, then please don’t claim it as some sort of conservative principle.

Now, if you want to argue that hanging a facsimile of bull testicles is not the same as public nudity or indecent exposure or masturbating in public, that’s a fair point.

But if you’re going to claim an absolute and unlimited right to do whatever you want with your body and your property even in public, then I don’t believe that’s a conservative principle at all.

didymus on August 4, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Triple order of hashbrowns, scattered, smothered, chunked, diced, and peppered. And an apple cinnamon oat double waffle.

In the words of Emeril, ohyeahbabe.

Truck Nutz aren’t obscene, just vulgar. Somebody wants to prove they are tasteless, they are free to do so.

Freelancer on August 4, 2011 at 10:42 PM

The point is the government has no right to tell me what I can or can’t say, and no right to tell me what I do with my own property.

That’s preposterous. Who’s going to enforce that “right”? So because you own a portable DVD screen and a van and plenty of porn, that gives you the right to drive around showing it to everyone on the road, right? If the government really has no right, then they are illegitimate to stop you from doing so. It is after all, your property.

We’re back to screaming at 2 am because its arguably “speech” and other people could have made other economical decisions to not live near you or to put more layers of soundproofing between you and them. Unless you’re basing this on Rand’s crap, where do you get the idea that you are this inviolable entity, and from where besides the recognition of your fellow man are you hoping to get backing for that?

Hey it’s not skin off my own, if 90% percent of Americans voted that truck nuts were a sacrosanct expression of the highest order. I don’t expect to always agree with the majority, but I accept the principle of majorities, and where needed super-majorities as the will of the people.

It’s really funny how people are about the majoritarian principle. Various other brands of conservative are always trying to hide we “extremist” social conservatives because America would never accept our extremism. They even give the majority opinion some credence to show how “out of touch” we are with the rest of America, but that’s the self-same hoard of banshees that they fear starting at truck nuts and preceding to socialist fascism or nihilist and new wave Nazism.

This schizophrenic view seems to be indicative of flight from dealing with the imperfect present to the perfection of somebody’s theory that will turn words into mathematical perfection.

I just think it’s ironic that conservatives of any form have inherited the progressives fear of the ignorance of the common man.

And please let’s knock off the nonsense about how anybody can see bull balls. Unless you think that bull’s are making a statement and “speaking” then you’re defeating the framing of your own argument as “speech”. Nobody expects owners to castrate their bulls simply because somebody might catch a glimpse of their testicles. But visibility is quite the object of these things. And since nobody transfers bulls back and forth as much as people drive to work and to the store in their trucks, it hardly has the same exposure.

Axeman on August 5, 2011 at 12:17 AM

I hate those things, especially with my daughter in the car and you’re stuck behind some dork with those things hanging on the back of his truck. Which is another thing, I have to wonder about guys who have models of male genitalia on their automobiles. Doesn’t make them look like “he-men” to me. Quite the opposite.
I think if some guy/girl(or girly-guy) wants to have those things they should put them where THEY would have to look at them, like inside hanging on their radio knob or something. If they did that they might just wake up one day and say, “Crap! I have testicles hanging in my car! Whatever gave me the thought that this was a good idea?!”

But unless we’re ready to require livestock and pets to wear underpants, I don’t think artificial plastic testicles on trucks meet the standard for obscenity.

GalosGann on August 4, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Normally, livestock aren’t stuck in front of you at a redlight or cruising down the road.

So let me get this straight.

It’s illegal to send a picture of testicles by a text message to a minor, irresponsible-uncouth-trashy between adults, but it’s “ok” to hang a 3D set from my truck for everyone of any age to see?

LEBA on August 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Good point, LEBA.

Sterling Holobyte on August 5, 2011 at 12:50 AM

I stopped right there.

So, you want limits, but “you” want to set, the limits. “You” decide what is vulgar. I see. My point from the beginning. Everyone has the line they draw.

We’re done.

hawkdriver on August 4, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Yep, I think there should be lines drawn.

I think drawing them so severely that if you applied them evenly you’d need privacy screens for pastures alongside the road is stupid.

I think having no lines drawn is stupid.

Oh, and I think having a rule applied unevenly is both unfair and stupid.

Which one did you want? Oh yes, lines drawn so severely we’d need to sign a waiver in case something got frisky at the petting zoo, and privacy screens by the roadside… that or a ruling of “indecent” that wouldn’t be applied evenly, fairly, or equally.

Probably just as well you stopped reading.

Normally, livestock aren’t stuck in front of you at a redlight or cruising down the road.
Sterling Holobyte on August 5, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Nope, there’s only about 300 miles of livestock in pastureland between me and my parents house (most of the rest is planted farmland)… who could imagine seeing cows from a car?

I’m guessing you don’t get out of whatever big city you live in much.

gekkobear on August 5, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3