Brickbats

Brickbat: Out of Sight

|

Fetus
Steve Allen / Dreamstime.com

An Alberta judge has ruled that the city of Grande Prairie did not violate the free speech rights of an anti-abortion group when it banned their ads from transit buses. The ads featured photos of fetuses and read "Abortion kills children. End the killing." The judge said the ads could traumatize women who have had abortions or who plan to have one.

Advertisement

NEXT: Worst of Times

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey, I’m on a diet and traumatized by food ads on public transit. Can I get them banned, too?

    1. I am traumatized by government …

      1. well, I’m traumatized by trauma…

        1. I’m traumatized by fatasses looking at food ads on public transportation. Especially by their salivation.

          1. I’m traumatized by government fatasses looking at people looking at food ads on public transactions, especially by thair salavating at the increased tax revenue and scope for more regulation.

  2. Civil rights haven’t made it to Canada yet. Give them time.

    1. They can’t have any of ours. We are in short supply.

    2. I think they get stopped at the border…

  3. i particularly like the part about how kids had never heard of the word “abortion”, but since they know what “kill” means, this ad can’t be allowed. it’s pretty low for the grammar of someone who hasn’t even entered puberty yet to determine what’s permissible speech….even in canada.

  4. What is this ‘Canada’ of which you speak?

    1. North Minnesota.

    2. the southern artic

        1. The USA’s subsidiary.

  5. I wouldn’t feel too proud being seen on a bus plastered with pro abortion ads.

    1. Who ever feels pride riding public transportation?

        1. not any driver I’ve seen. they don’t want to be there either.

        2. +1 Ralph Kramden

    2. Fetuses don’t have any feels.

  6. OT ,is CNN going to keep banging the ‘Russians are coming ‘ drum for the next 4-8 years? The TDS is strong over there.

    1. They will transition to some other anti-Trump bullshit before too long and pretend the completely discredited Russia angle never happened.

    2. I hope that they have blonde hair and hot bodies. Then “Welcome!”.

      1. *and big tits.

        1. I’d be ok with even medium tits…

  7. Oh man, you missed it. CNN, they’re talking about Obama’s speech and one of them mentions how “inclusive” his speech was, mentions Obama name-checked the “middle-aged white guys” so apparently he’s learned to include Trump’s people. Errol Lewis interjects that Obama’s always included middle-aged white guys in his speeches and cites as an example “remember in 2008 when he was talking about them clinging to their Bibles and stuff?” – and I’m pretty sure he was being completely serious.

    1. Oh, so you’re slumming it with CNN now. I see.

    2. I haven’t seen anything about it on PCN*. It must be fake news.

      *(PCN is a fictional news network in my books that is based off of a joke someone else made. It stands for “Plot Convenience News”)

      1. I thought it was Pussy Cat Nouns…

        1. But how would you get news from them?

          1. Gentle stroking.

            1. Just grab ’em.

  8. Horrible.

    But whatever.

    Canada.

    1. Why is it Canada can’t seem to grasp what “Rights” actually means?

      1. Garbage constitution thanks to Trudeau mostly. Opens with “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” So basically “LOL, you don’t have rights, you have privileges the state can take away whenever they can justify it.”

        1. Precisely.

          Also, we didn’t have it from the onset when the country was formed. The nation was born with any enlightened notions and powerful message about the rights of man like the USA did. There is no, I contend, impulse to get worked up over free speech and expression here because it wasn’t embedded into our psyche.

          Since we don’t have the concept that power derives from (God) and into the individual, we just *accept* it comes from government like a bunch of sheep and Trudeau only put to words with a strong progressive angle this fact

          Canadians don’t have free speech. We have regulated speech and they don’t fucken realize it.

          1. We, they, it…whatever. Preparing the kid’s breakfast.

            1. More like a dog’s breakfast amirite*

              *I am not right

              1. You are….not?

          2. It’s the difference between a contented Canadian elite going along with ‘responsible government’ and a radical overthrow of the existing power structure.

            If 1837 had been successful Canada would be a very different place.

          3. “Since we don’t have the concept that power derives from (God) and into the individual, we just *accept* it comes from government”

            I see this “God or government” thing a lot, and it never makes any sense. Are atheists supposed to think morality is just whatever the government says it is? It’s a nonsensical line of thinking.

            1. Not sure I understand but when I said it it was in spirt of the Founding Fathers who believe man’s liberty flowed naturally from God’s authority.

              Atheists can complain about it but don’t see the point.

              1. believed. I don’t think they’re alive….or are they?

        2. That merely demonstrates their longstanging trouble with the concept, but does not address why they fail to grasp it.

          1. Don’t under estimate the part where they probably see what happens in the USA and *think* it’s nuts.

            ‘Look at those Americans screaming about rights! We’re so much more enlightened and calm here.’

            That kind of crap. They’ve been fed a real rotten bilk of goods on that. And I agree with JT, this falls strongly on Trudeau. More than anyone, he closed whatever loophole or impulse we may have had with liberty. And it gets worse in Quebec where they constantly hammer at the English language not once ever realizing what they’re doing is abhorrent where civil rights are concerned.

            They seem, Canadians, to think you can ‘balance’ and pick and choose where you can apply rights. So in Quebec they think, ‘hey, you have the right to representation or health care so pipe down about your language rights!’

            That kind of rubbish.

            1. *misundrestimate

          2. It was never taught to them when they were in their young, formative years. The concept of negative rights is alien to nearly everyone in the world outside the US.

            I distinctly remember at the age of 8 traveling down Camp Livingston Road with the whole family in our green 1976 Oldsmobile station wagon (yes, fake wood panels) while my stepfather explained to us kids about self-ownership. He didn’t use that term and probably didn’t understand that is what he was talking about, but that is what it was. He started explaining to us that we, our bodies, minds and consciences were more valuable than any material property, that no amount of money was worth selling out for and we should always think for ourselves. The guy only had a HS education and was not terribly articulate but he was usually spot on with regards to nearly everything. That talk made an impression on me. How many children in Europe get that? Canada? Latin America? My guess is nearly zero.

            1. Your self, body, mind, and soul are very important fodder for keeping the government machine topped off and running strong.

            2. When I was eight years old, I was shocked when my mother told me that suicide was illegal (in Pennsylvania).

  9. “The judge said the ads could traumatize women who have had abortions or who plan to have one.”

    Uh,….isn’t that the entire purpose? Shame you into not going through with it/never do it again?

    1. The ads should just show womenz with their knees tight together…best way to prevent abortionz is don’t be doing the horizontal mambo…

      1. Showing women abstaining isn’t really an argument in favor of abstaining.

  10. Should be ok to reject controversial political ads on the basis of not alienating any potential customers, as long as they are up front consistent about the policy. But the judge needs to find a new line of work.

  11. The aforementioned Alberta judge obviously dodged a coat hanger.

  12. You forgot to mention the trauma it causes the unborn child.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.