Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact

[MicroBalrog]

Well within the state's rights power.

I also happen to approve. I don't relish explaining to a 4 year old what tasteless things some truck owners wish to impose on others.

Again, so long as there are "public" areas, the public has a say in what is acceptable there. Want to drive around with "Truck nuts" on private property? Knock yourself out.

On this logic, could the town ban the truck itself? Say, on the idea 'this is our hippie-lolberal town, and pickup trucks hurt mother Gaia'?

Could the town ban bumper stickers that say REPEAL PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS, DOWN WITH PURITANISM?

Again, obviously legally they might have issues, I'm asking for the moral viewpoint.

[makattak]

(1)On this logic, could the town ban the truck itself? Say, on the idea 'this is our hippie-lolberal town, and pickup trucks hurt mother Gaia'?

(2)Could the town ban bumper stickers that say REPEAL PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS, DOWN WITH PURITANISM?

Again, obviously legally they might have issues, I'm asking for the moral viewpoint.

(1) Of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island

(2) There is no obscenity in that statement. Thus, not morally right to ban.

[MicroBalrog]

(1) Of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island

(2) There is no obscenity in that statement. Thus, not morally right to ban.

I thought we could do whatever we wanted? After all you CHOOOOSE! to live in that location?

[makattak]

I thought we could do whatever we wanted? After all you CHOOOOSE! to live in that location?

You didn't ask if they had the power to do that, you asked if it was morally right.

[CNYCacher]

Given that they're clearly designed to portray human body parts, I wonder how he'd feel if the local elementary schools started celebrating Honen Matsuri.

Clearly, they are designed to portray bull body parts.  Their position on the back of a 4-legged creature (truck) should be obvious.

The original: http://www.bullsballs.com/

[MicroBalrog]

You didn't ask if they had the power to do that, you asked if it was morally right.

Yes, they clearly don't have the power to regulate non-obscene statements. They're limited by the first Amendment. It applies to localities. So do state constitutions.

[makattak]

Yes, they clearly don't have the power to regulate non-obscene statements. They're limited by the first Amendment. It applies to localities. So do state constitutions.

Under U.S. law, they don't have the power. I should have said "should have that power".

I think they should. I also think it would be morally wrong to infringe on non-obscene free speech, but that should be a limit placed in constitutions by argreement of the whole, like we have in the United States.

So it is a power that localities should have, but could not morally exercise.

[KD5NRH]

(1) Of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island

AFAICT, the motor vehicle ban there is simply a part of general "don't be a dumbass" rules.  The part of the island not in the state park is smaller than a lot of city parks; the longest distance you would actually need to travel without leaving the island would be four miles.