Posted on 11/15/2017 2:43:30 PM PST by Joe Dallas
Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls is threatening disorderly conduct charges against the owner of a white truck bearing a large "F--- TRUMP" sticker on the back window. The truck's sticker goes on to read "AND F--- YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM," according to a photo posted Wednesday on Nehls' official Facebook page. Nehls said he's responding to calls from concerned residents in trying to identify the truck's owner. "I have received numerous calls regarding the offensive display on this truck as it is often seen along FM 359," Nehls said in his post. "If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, I would like to discuss it with you. Our Prosecutor has informed us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it, but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification to it."
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
I’m big on the First Amendment, myself. But there are limits. The most famous is
" Never get involved in a land war in Asia”crying “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, but there are others. E.g., “assault” is just threatening words.
Abusive language directed at (a large fraction of) the general public certainly sounds like “disorderly conduct" to me.
Quoted in the reference:
Caine said the decision remained a troubling aspect of First Amendment law because it is still used by many courts — particularly state — to uphold convictions for people who criticize the police.
“While the lower federal courts generally follow the Supreme Court’s (later) lead in not upholding convictions for fighting words, the state courts have not been as [reluctant] and have stretched the fighting words doctrine beyond all recognition, primarily to protect the police from criticism, with all of the inherent dangers that such an approach presents,” Caine wrote.
Ironically, related to the Chaplinsky cases was a later case referenced in the link below (Cohen v. California (1971)).
Read it and weep, all you who would prosecute a man protected by USC (imho):
Later U.S. Supreme Court decisions seemingly curtailed the reach of Chaplinsky. For example, in Cohen v. California (1971), the Court ruled that an individual’s wearing of a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in a California courthouse did not constitute fighting words, because Cohen did not direct the message at a particular person or group. “No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant’s jacket as a direct personal insult,” the Court said.
I, for one, would have been pleased had BLM & its sycophants argued a Chaplinsky-like case against the lawful gathering in Charlottesville, as even with the current court I'd be confident that that's one case sure to be overruled.
.02 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/fighting-words-case-still-making-waves-on-70th-anniversary/
Personally- I don’t think so, either. More that profanity is a sign of being inarticulate and/or unable to form thoughts coherently.
The law, however, is different. Plus, *I* want to have the right to have a Calvin taking a leak on a star and crescent, and being able to know that any court in the land will throw out any lawsuit or public ordinance that would restrict it.
Personally- I don’t think so, either. More that profanity is a sign of being inarticulate and/or unable to form thoughts coherently.
The law, however, is different. Plus, *I* want to have the right to have a Calvin taking a leak on a star and crescent, and being able to know that any court in the land will throw out any lawsuit or public ordinance that would restrict it.
Can the judge please order the witness to answer my question?
If you had an 18 year old daughter and this guy walked up to her and said, “F**k you” without provocation completely out of the blue, what would your reaction be?
Now that’s funny stuff right there.
Listen, JA. Be specific.
You asked “Are you a Constitutionalist?” so I answered the Constitutional question, not the asshat question which has nothing to do with your question.
But I’ll play, since you’re so keen to conflate something which also has NOTHING to do with the OP, let alone the cited case.
I defer to Buzz Aldrin’s reaction.
Happy? If not, go pull the stick out.
The point which you and the other know it alls here are ignoring (and my hypothetical that you won’t answer demonstrates) is the existence of something called, for good reason, ‘fighting words’. It’s not nearly as black and white as you would like to preach. Get stuck behind this guy with your family in traffic and get back to me.
I didn’t write that it was black & white. Far from it, but you go on & keep trying to metaphorically put words in my mouth; it states a lot about your character.
You’re comparing words to a person’s individual reactions to words not directed at them personally. I would have a stronger reaction to a person whose bumper stickers stated respectively “obama 2008” & “obama 2012” reflecting the idiot behind the wheel.
A simpleton who feels the need to state his sophomoric opinion in the manner outlined by the OP is only eclipsed by a person’s sophomoric reaction to another’s opinion with no comparison to being confronted verbally.
Conflating post 77’s question with the OP is straw man.
As for you, if you’re capable of reading between the lines I’ve already addressed you. Thin skin & lack of personal responsibility will be this country’s undoing; it’s already in-progress.
Are the words actually spelled out? Because who wants to be behind that taking a kid to school or in the school car line? Much less having to explain what it means?
Spot-on. bramps is literally in left field with skin as thin as onion.
At least I'm not posting about others behind their back (and against forum rules).
And note, Mr. Glass house, you never responded to any of my direct questions. You can't handle and respond to simple questions on an anonymous site (because the answers don't fit with your narrative). And I'm the one with thin skin?
Yes, you are if you are intolerant of a bumper sticker displayed on a vehicle in front of you.
Though I briefly considered letting the air out of the tires of shrillary, Bernie and bama-stickered cars, I never acted on it and NEVER considered for a microsecond that anyone deserved sanction for free speech...EVEN the profane messages displayed locally mirroring the OP.
And yes, I did answer your question.
And no, there is no rule against a sidebar comment about another. I stand resolute: You’re in left field on this free speech matter and, ironically, demonstrate why 1A is so important.
Furthermore, you’re attacking me for expressing an opinion.
Go away now and stop trolling me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.