Truck nuts swing onto US freedom of speech agenda The lower portions of the US are distracting themselves from the Washington debt-ceiling car crash by asking whether the use of "truck nuts" constitutes obscenity or is a question of free expression. The constitutional freedom issue has swung into the national consciousness after a South Carolina woman was ticketed for hanging …
Whats the point of hanging a "turkeys throat" from the tow bar of your vehicle?
Janet Jackson pops a nipple and America calls for the death penalty but if you live in a trailer park and you are your own mother, brother, uncle and son its ok to hang some man lumps from your towing hitch.
Someone needs to take off and nuke that place from orbit, free speech is more than the right to hang plastic testicles on your car!
"Janet Jackson pops a nipple and America calls for the death penalty"
Actually, that's not "America", that's the vocal minority of professional busybodies. They could donate testicles for this here slightly obnoxious use.
"Free speech is more than the right to hang plastic testicles on your car"
Sure but the two are not incompatible,
Yes free speech is more than this, but it also should include this.
I too feel this obscene, and cringe a bit when driving behind a half-wit with these strapped to his truck when my young daughter is in the car.
But I still think this qualifies as free speech: for one many have made the valid point that even if you live in the city, nuts are on animals and we don't put diapers on them, to suggest so would make you look stupid.
Put this way... we have the first amendment so that what is offensive to me isn't automatically illegal, and in this system, what I enjoy or find funny, that others find obscene is also protected.
Plus there is any EASY WAY TO FIX THIS, as far as I am concerned cutting the suckers off with a box cutter is also protected as an act of free speech.
A.) There is no better way to emasculate (literally) a red-neck than cutting the nuts off his truck.
B.) Most Red-necks simply can't afford to keep replacing something that costs $20 or more.
So quiet down, put a box cutter in your glove-box, and the next time you see someone dumb enough to leave their balls hanging out unprotected you give them a good reminder of why we keep these in our pants!!!!
If say I have a giant cock or twat or painted on the side of my car then yeah I would say that is open grounds for asking someone to paint your car.
Now if you think the color green is comparable to a realistic pair of balls on display, then you sir have some perversions about color and fail to see difference... but then if that's the case then you are too far gone to educate
And I'm just as much against the kind of stuck-up elitist snobbery that people like you espouse. Let me tell you something. I've been friends with t-shirt-and-jeans-wearing rednecks (they call them "bogans" where I live) and I've been friends with shirt-and-tie-wearing yuppies in my time.
Guess which friends were there when I needed them? Guess which friends helped me out when I was down on my luck? Guess which friends stabbed me in the back in order to get ahead? Guess which friends borrowed money off me and then either denied they owed it to me or just made endless excuses as to not being able to pay it back "yet"?
In case you can't figure it out, the answers to questions 1 and 2 above are - bogans. And the answers to 3 and 4 are - yuppies (I don't know what else to call them, but with your attitude you strike me as being one.)
When you get to know them, and don't look down your nose at them just because they don't have a string of university degrees and a six-figure salary, "rednecks/bogans/chavs" are often hard working, no-bullshit, and trustworthy friends to have.
No doubt a lot of people here will disagree with me, probably because sites like El Reg aren't high on a bogan's reading list, but having been around and seeing your comment above, I felt compelled to put in a good word for them.
"t-shirt-and-jeans-wearing"
I don't know what a bogan is, but I can tell you it takes far more than that to be a redneck. Go buy the cheapest beer you can find and proceed to chuck the cans out the window as you drive to meet up with friends and shoot the insulators off the electric lines (so what if you knock out power to others - you're drunk and bored!). Or cut ruts in someone's field on your ATV (problem for the farmer?? who cares - again, it's not your problem).
From your description, perhaps a bogan means being of a rural provenance or of limited financial means? It takes more than that to be a redneck. (For the record, along with being from a rural area, I don't have a string of degrees, and am not making six-figures - but I heartily reject the label "redneck" that you would apparently apply to me. Such a label would also imply I have lost all aspirations to improve).
Anyone wanting to ban truck nuts is just a dick. The desire to ban "offensive" things like this is a growing problem, and just seems to keep coming up again and again. Even when it's proven that one can't just slip into a crack in the constitution and put whatever one wants in there, they still keep trying to jam it in. Really people need to just calm down and think about something distracting, like baseball. That will hold it off for a while and make the whole experience just that more pleasant.
Good day.
Personnally I hate the things, but I don't see how they're obscene. Seriously, they look more like bull balls than human ones. Are they gonna start making bulls wear pants? Or zoo animals? Because I gotta tell you my kids see pretty similar sights every time I take them to the zoo.
Despite the fact that I see at least one truck sporting these things almost every day (not to mention the number of motorcycles around here that have them), that picture is the first pair I've seen that are flesh colored. Flesh colored ones with a guy sitting on the bumper above them looks just wrong.
If their law says that you can't have a bumper sticker that reads "Obama is Fucking Us!"* "Palin is a Cunt!"* or "Shit Happens", then it seems reasonable. A bumper sticker with text is merely a reference to whatever they find obscene; having a realistic looking 3-D pair of family jewels is far more graphic about the subject matter.
Oh, and if I'm so crazed about not wanting my self/kids/family to see any sexualy oriented thing of any kind, then I don't have to take them to the zoo/let them watch TV/use the internet/have a pet/etc.. There's not much I can do if some redneck cuts me off on the road with his/her set(s) of balls dangling in front of me. Also, while generally given as a lesser point, the 1st Amendment is primarily designed to protect political speech; spouting crap just because you feel like it doesn't always cut it.
"Flesh colored ones with a guy sitting on the bumper above them looks just wrong." Apparently the guy in the picture agrees, since he went to all that trouble to anonymize his own face... Either that or he just doesn't have the balls to say that he wants testicles on his truck if he might face some retribution.
*Hypothetical bumper sticker slogans... I hope.
And that's not a hypothetical bumper sticker. Spend time driving around Columbia SC and I guarantee you will see at least 5 of those bumper stickers on the road. More if you're in Columbia during a football Saturday.
Or go walk around U of SC campus and you'll see girls wearing 'Cocks' across their butt on shorts or sweatpants.
The weird part about your objection is that it is you that is sexualising am image that is intended as a show of masculinity.
It is you that is projecting a distasteful understanding onto a simply juvenile gesture.
Personally i think it is you who should be censored or grow up and teach your kids about how life works rather than trying to hide them from it.
"Also, while generally given as a lesser point, the 1st Amendment is primarily designed to protect political speech;"
Umm, I can't see how this could be anything *other* than political speech. Something like furry dice could be decoration or an indication of support for some sports team. But bollocks? Can that really be anything except an attempt to get up the noses of moral conservatives?
From the image posted with the article, the nuts do not seem to be a bumper sticker, rather it seems to be something than is hung... from the truck.
Is the "Obscene Bumper Sticker" law for all decorative objects on motor vehicles or does it only apply to bumper stickers?
I'll tell you whats nuts, blaming the current president for all the problems created by the three or four previous presidents.
Maybe they should mint that Trillion dollar coin, the could put Obama on one side and Boehner on the other, they could call it the O-boner; heads I win tails you lose :P
freedom of speech was not designed to be a means for attention wh0res and other dicks to simply p*ss people off. Nor was it about creativity. it was to guarantee political commentary and information on how government was working, what it was doing, etc-and criticism on those-were free and available. Education and awareness being the most important aspects necessary for a real functional Democracy.
Instead people water it down to allow lack of talent to be called 'art", to allow people to insult or aggravate their neighbors. People only get up in arms about crap they should grow up about, but seem to have no problems with a government classifying political maneuverings as 'secret', closed door meetings, and screams of "racist!" used to drown out any political criticism.
In other words, your right to be antagonistic runs right against my right to not see your immature shite. If the community, as a majority, decides there are more of us who think your plastic sac is over the line, then grow up and take them off. It's not "all about you". You want to hang them from a poster of Boehner or Weiner, THEN we have some worthy debate as to whether or not they are a "free speech" issue and THAT should be taken to court.
The definition of free speech, per the US Bll of Rights, runs: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There's no specific clause that says "as long as it's about things deemed important". Free speech is free speech, there's no iff nor but, it is the freedom to express yourself however you see fit. In the public sphere you have no right to not see anatagonist immature shit. The minute you exercise that particular "right", you impinge on the free expression of another.
This being trivial has no direct bearing on the issues you raised. They are important. However, the fact that this is a silly, trivial little thing is precisely why it is also important. If we let the State begin to take away trivial aspects of a fundamental right, they can salami-slice their way through it until that right is gone.
In case you haven't noticed, there are a number of laws that "abridge the freedom of speech." They are primarily in areas that directly inflict harm upon another individual. Thus, we have laws against slander and defamation. We also have laws against verbal abuse. And the SCotUS has upheld obscenity laws in the past as well. Indeed the obscenity laws can be considered as a part of the general desire to protect against harm.
If you really can't understand how being forced to see something obscene can be harmful, then it's probably time to find a gentler part of the country to live in.
More examples of the limitations on free speech in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States #Types_of_restraints_on_speech
Sorry, you're wrong, wrong, wrong.
The problem is an unjust abridgement of your right to say what you want about the government/politics. It's the easiest thing in the world for an unjust government to say "Your speech about Joe Politician sucking is merely a vulgar description of how his dentures fit poorly, and not covered under our definition of freedom of speech." IIRC, it has been a common practice in certain regimes to do either that, or simply deem the speaker "insane", and lock him up forever.
The only way to have a guarantee that sort of thing cannot happen is to recognize the freedom to say whatever you want, no matter how non-political it may be. This does not mean that such speech is without consequence -- the old classic of shouting fire in a crowded theater still applies.
There are practical limits, as well. If you shout "everyone's drinks are on me!" in a rough bar, you can't backpedal out of it later -- unless you don't kind spitting teeth.
OTOH, a person who takes a box cutter to my (truck) jewels will find me snapping a pic and going after him/her for vandalism.
Freedom of Speech was never restricted to politics. The entire point of the Right to Freedom of Speech is that I am allowed to say whatever I want, whenever I want about whatever I want. The only restriction is that this right cannot be used to harm someone else's rights nor threaten national security.
However, you don't have any 'right to not see your immature shite' - there is no freedom from being offended. And because none of your rights, nor anyone else's, have been harmed, you don't get any right to do anything. Why? Because *everyone* gets the right to say what they want, even if it's offensive. So instead try not looking and not being a whiny little tosspot.
And as for 'If the... majority, decides...your plastic sac is over the line, then grow up and take them off', you understand neither Freedom, Education, Awareness nor Democracy. The entire point of Freedom of Speech is that the majority *don't* get to decide.
Perhaps you should stop moaning about others growing up and try it yourself first
"In other words, your right to be antagonistic runs right against my right to not see your immature shite. If the community, as a majority, decides there are more of us who think your plastic sac is over the line, then grow up and take them off. It's not "all about you"."
Your posting is antagonizing. I have a right not to see it. Grow up and don't post again. It's not "all about you".
Fun how that works, isn't it?
No, you're trivializing freedom of speech. You're trying to whittle down to one particular category of speech you think is acceptable. I agree the concept has been interpreted somewhat broadly over the years, it's true. But if that means I have to see an offensive bumper sticker now and then (and believe me, I do), I can live with it. The consequences of interpreting it narrowly in contrast, could be disastrous.
Censorship is poison for democracy. Even an apparently reasonable law like blocking child pornography can be abused. And as we've seen in various cases around the world, if it can be abused, it probably will be.
It is a receiver hitch. The tow ball is on a long square tube piece that is inserted into to the space where the balls are hung. We septics don't have to drive around with tow ball hanging in the breeze.
Really the issue is that the attachment is anatomically incorrect. The receiver is a female receptacle. Having a set of balls is useless and detrimental to the enjoyment of said device.
"...we have had mandated in the UK since forever."
Er untrue. A quick look at the Witter website shows two detachable types available for most vehicles. They cost about 100 quid more than the fixed ones, which is the *real* reason you don't see 'em that often.
I had a detachable one on a Disco in Britain a decade ago. It was a lot cheaper then as it didn't have to have that EU standards compliance stamp, so my "unapproved" detachable cost less than half what an "approved" fixed one did.
Obviously you are one of those city types that must rely on others to get anything done beyond driving your Le Car to work and back. Leave the city, and your city services, long enough to realize that trucks are necessary for many reasons beyond getting from one place to another.
Just because your city sucks does not mean that my country living has to be affected by your same rules and inadequacies.
In this part of the world (South America), or at least the Spanish speaking part of it, some of the words we use to describe men with "big balls" are not intended to flattering.
In Chile: "huevón" or with another spelling "güevón".
In Argentina, Uruguay: "boludo".
I'm sure there are other countries with some local equivalency.
Both cases have the same meaning: someone stupid, lacking understanding, an imbecile.
I believe the closest word in English slang would be "moron".
So if here someone hanged a plastic set of testicles to a bumper, or any other place, it would be recognized at least as a self derogatory statement... and most possibly, as a clear indication of the mind set of the owner.
R
That simply because your government has spent enough money yet to fix stupid. If you aren't careful, they'll double the taxes levied to find a stupid cure.
Well, not a cure, but a nice drug you can take for the rest of your life that makes you seem less stupid because you lose the ability to speak for long stretches.
Look,
Here in the US, the bumper hitch is really a square receptacle that can take various hitches and since its removable, its easily stolen or lost. So when not in use, most people take them off.
So there's an after market of things you can put in the hitch:
1) Truck balls
2) replica claymore mines made from the same ABS plastic and looks damn real until you see the red 'replica' tag on the side.
3) Boat propellers that spin in the wind.
4) Oversized 'belt buckles'. Like what you see some trucker wear.
I'm sure there is more, but I'd settle for the claymore replica.
"If you had a small child, particularly a girl or with an elderly grandmother or have a preacher in the car, how would you feel? That's the litmus test,"
Fuda could have been more sexist but then he did give a 65 yr old woman a ticket. Clearly he is a modern sexist but I have to wonder where he draws the line at elderly. The really confusing bit is the preacher, surely he'd just forgive and forget or turn the other cheek or something.
Anyway, since the balls were red, I'm guessing they failed the test for being too acidic.
You tell that Po-lice chief cum Nutzi nanny wut fer! I'm guessing the prig has been blue ballin' for some time now and that his missus found a battery operated replacement for his "night stick".
Seriously Chief, if you want to start talking about things that are obscene, let's start with your attitude.
Yeah, but my all wheel drive luxury car is electronically-limited to 155mph. Just saying...
Anyway, freedom is dead in the USA (and most other places for that matter). Seriously, freedom is deader than a gnat stuck on the face of a hammer. You do anything out of the ordinary in public and all of a sudden you get unwanted attention from the authorities.
"Free Country" - puh!
I'd bet very large numbers of people in those same constituencies down there would consider a realistic--but hairless--plastic vulva covering the receiver hitch to be obscene. And I doubt the numbers would be much different if the 'bumper sticker' vulva was modeled on Smurfette's.
* Why should the law care? When people on that benighted continent can display real guns, why do false goolies matter?
*Why on earth would anyone want a pair of plastic like-size bollocks on a truck? Are these people deranged?
I think there are 'truck nuts' in the story, but they are the nuts holding the steering wheel.
I am also baffled that South Carolina /has an obscene bumper-sticker law/. Is their general legislation on obscene publications so poor? or is it that bumper stickers are the only written material they possess?
Oh, and if you follow the link to the local radio station, you will find that the illustrations of 'truck nuts' have been slightly pixelated, but not enough to obscure anything!
> When people on that benighted continent can display real guns,
You know, we have not yet quite eradicated all of the non-human animal species from the rest of this planet. You clueless city folk should contemplate that before you start whining about how well armed other parts of the planet are.
Last time I checked, testicles don't talk. I'm sure if I printed this:
http://www.avitable.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/jfc.jpg
on the side of my vehicle, with or without the text accompaniment, that I'd be pulled over and forced to remove or cover it. Do you think the first amendment should cover my ass in that instance?
They're a garish and unsightly redneck gag. I'd be happy to see them banned from ALL roads.
OK, you have to be consistent here. If you ban truck nuts you have to ban wheel nuts as well.
I must admit I'm totally baffled by some of the arguments floating around.
First of all, sorry, this is nuts. Is THIS really worth police and court time while the country is on the verge of defaulting instead of its traditional printing of more money (which is coming to an end if I see how China is acting)?
Secondly, I have already seen the inevitable "think of the children" argument - excuse me while I finish yawning, be right with you. AFAIK most kids at age 3 can already comfortably distinguish between real nuts and fake ones, so what are you going to do with a young boy? Tell him not to watch his own body in a mirror because it's offensive?
Honestly - I think this ticket was pure .. jealousy. Because whoever gave that still needs to grow a pair..
So if the truck nuts are obscene and not fit for public view should all farms that have Bulls that graze in view of public have their testes tucked away inside a diaper or use the classic black bar from old tv hanging from their tails? What about at the circus should we cover elephant balls also! Also this just in the American sheeple now beginning to realize what the rest of the educated world already knew that we as a country are circling the drain! from now on I'm going to claim I'm Canadian when I travel outside the US Eh!!! Hundreds of years from now when kids go to school and learn history the first 2 decades of the 21st century history of the US will be titled EPIC FAIL.
First, most if not all of the commentards have never set foot in South Carolina. (And why would they want to?)
I wanted to put this in perspective... South Carolina is chock full of self righteous Southern Baptists. While there are other religions represented in the state, go in to any rural South Carolina town, you will see a plethora of Southern Baptist churches. (Note they are segregated too.) Even if the town is broke, has high unemployement, these churches for the most part are the best looking structures in town.
One of their Universities in Columbia SC has the gamecock as their mascot.
So why aren't these people finding it offensive to see 'I (heart) cocks!' bumper stickers?
Or co-eds walking around in tight shorts with 'cocks' written across their bum?
I kid you not.
The reason being is that these same people who find 'truck nuts' offensive recognize the term 'cocks' to refer to 'gamecocks' (a bird) and not a slang term for male genitalia. I kid you not.
We'll let all manor of violence and innuendo influence our children, but show some gender specific skin and you're the spawn of satan. skin has been an art form as long as humans have existed. Violence is just that... violence. I live in the country and am constantly amazed at the stupidity of those in authority. I say celebrate the human form and frown on the violence. That's the way it should be. so what if someone wants to put a cod sack on their truck... you don't see privacy fences around the stud corral just because the bull/horse/etc has a full set and flaunts it.
If you're offended by the fact that someone has some balls... well... sounds like a personal problem to me. Piss off!
*I would never put a set on my vehicles though... I prefer to be understated instead of overstated.
WCSC quoted local police chief Franco Fuda explaining, "Genitalia is offensive. As a law enforcement officer, I'll advise that if it warrants a citation, I'll issue a citation."
Next law on the books: All male horses, cattle, pigs, dogs, etc. must be fitted with fig leaves or be fined for flaunting their naughty bits in public.
is the same folk demanding the tasteless "all I need to know about islam" truck banned and burned, are the same folk who now support hanging nads.
So it's okay to offend people unless it's you?
it's called "society". look it up, A bunch of people living in close proximity with *agreed upon rules and limits* to help everything get along.
Justifying being a selfish tw@t as "freedom" is bad enough. Justifying "I can be a selfish tw@t but you shall be arrested for it" is the true evil.
Go suck a truck nut. Offended yet? demanding this not be published? But y'all said no one has the right to not be offended? oh wait...social "just us". A little cultural apartheid never hurt anyone.
But are they protected free speech? I very much think so, even if I think they're silly. Frankly, I think my country (yes, I'm a yank - I'll get my coat, but not until I'm done,) swings very much in the wrong way on what is or is not protected free speech.
Hatemongers (I won't name any names, but you probably can guess the ones I'm thinking of within three tries,) get a free pass to cause all the emotional mayhem and havoc they want, inciting others to hatred in the process, but moral busybodies see truck nuts and think that those, not hatred spewing from a firehose, is worthy of being suppressed? The priorities on display are skewed.
As for the truck nuts being "offensive," if someone thinks that, then chances are they're the sort of person whose parents refused to allow them to take health classes or sex ed for fear of "sinful thoughts," and who now inflict that woeful ignorance on their own progeny. Crass, yes, rude, yes. Offensive? I don't think so - but even if they are offensive, they're hardly the most offensive thing being slung (literally, in this case) in the name of free speech.
If something being "offensive" is enough to get it banned, then I can name about five groups that need to be disbanded by force of arms - but that won't happen, and it shouldn't. Neither should truck-nadgers be punished by force of law.
Oh, and aside, for those who think that it's "protected free speech" to cut the truck nuts off someone's truck, remember that, "My right to swing my fist ends at another man's nose." That's not free speech, it's *vandalism*, destruction of property, and theft (if you remove said truck-nuts from their rightful place on the trailer hitch of the vehicle in question,) and should be punished appropriately. Same for those who think that someone having a bumper sticker they disagree with or find offensive should be punished with a bucket of paint.
The freedom of speech/expression isn't meant to protect speech or expression that's popular, it's meant to protect that which *isn't.*
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
