He says they violate the free speech rights of drivers who might disagree, who might be 'pro-choice'. And that is certainly true. But why is the consideration only given for people who might have conflicts over this statement? Why not broaden the viewpoint to looking at ANYTHING on the license plate, or the license plate being forced on drivers in the first place? What if a driver protests being forced to put numbers on his car? Why should that have any less bearing than any other subjective objection or desire on the part of the CAR OWNER being forced to apply something to his car against his will?

No court will approach the broader issue, because it calls into question the entire system of government operations. In many ways, this ruling could be applied to virtually anything the state does, because it has to support its functions with writs and laws and paperwork, etc. So, what if one protests having to pay for what is written on those pieces of paper, or those state-run computer files? Is it not the same principle? Yes. It is.

Only a voluntary society, free from state cercion, can allow people the choice that is necessary to reflect his or her true morals and beliefs. All state functions impede this essential human facility, and are, therefore, immoral.

http://myfox8.com/2012/12/10/judge-finds-nc-choose-life-plates-unconstit...

Be Seeing You!