Reply #9: The problem with these tags...

[colinmom71]

Isn't just the lack of allowing an opposing view to have the same benefit garnered by pro-life groups. Rather, it's that the state is willing to give preference to any political position and allow that position to be essentially advertized on state property.

It is not the role of good governance to promote one political position over another (never mind also allowing it to siphon public funding into said preference). In allowing a political view advertizement on state property, they are opening the door for any politically motivated groups to require the same privelege granted to the pro-life position. Does anyone here want to see "Segregation Again" tags? Cause I'm sure there are some racist groups who would love to share the same benefit that pro-life groups are garnering from these "Choose Life" tags....

The state should remain neutral when it comes to promotion os political speech. It is perfectly acceptable for a state to say provide public airing space for demonstrations and political gatherings (like the old town crier areas in parks), where the role is providing a space for free speech that any citizen can enjoy. It is a vastly different action when the state actively promotes one particular politically motivated form of speech, such as Tennessee is doing here with these so-called "Choose Life" tags...