Posted on 05/09/2019 4:51:42 PM PDT by conservative98
A Florida man who was arrested for refusing to remove a sticker on his car that read ‘I eat --‘ had all charges dropped against him on Thursday, officials said.
Dillon Shane Webb, 23, was informed by state prosecutors that the evidence against him does not warrant prosecution and Webb has a valid defense under the First Amendment.
“[The deputy] overstepped his boundaries by asking me to remove the sticker,” Webb told The Post on Thursday. “I want people to see that police officers are not above the law.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“Dillon Shane Webb, 23, was informed by state prosecutors that the evidence against him does not warrant prosecution . . .”
Doesn’t the state prosecutor have a name? The prosecutor must be in the Jeff Sessions class - immobilized by fear of the liberals and media.
Why is it wrong to eat a donkey?
” I honestly don’t care about other peoples’ sex lives. We all have one.”
How long have you been married?
Maybe he’s into BBQ donkey?
It is quite obvious that the human brain is not fully mature until age 30.
gmta.
I occasionally see a bumper sticker that says, “How’s my driving? Call 1-800-EAT-S-—” (without the dashes). It’s rude and offensive, and it bothers me that children in other cars on public streets will undoubtedly notice the sticker and read it. It wouldn’t bother me at all if idiots who put that sort of thing on their bumpers lost their driver’s licenses or some other suitable punishment.
Gross and disgusting. Most states have laws against obscene license plates, etc. However, I have always felt that the punishment is really delivered by public opinion.
When you see somebody with a bumper sticker like that, you know exactly what a jerk and creep he is. And I’m sure most women - unless he finds them under the highway overpass - would avoid him like the plague.
Avocado?
No right is unlimited. People should not place words or images in public view, especially where children are likely to be exposed to them, which are obscene, indecent, or profane. We have federal laws, in accordance with Supreme Court rulings, that prohibit these things on public airwaves:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
Why can’t similar standards be applied to images and messages displayed in public places?
Don’t let the kids see that he’s wearing the outline of a gun!!
LOL
How quaint, a cannibal who advertises.
Pickup trucks with a large atificial scrotum hanging from the trailer hitch tell me the owner is trash.
I’m confused. Does this guy eat at a Chinese or Mexican Restaurant?
Florida cats are again on the watch out for this guy, and the Vietnamese as always..
>
No right is unlimited. People should not place words or images in public view, especially where children are likely to be exposed to them, which are obscene, indecent, or profane. We have federal laws, in accordance with Supreme Court rulings, that prohibit these things on public airwaves:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
Why can’t similar standards be applied to images and messages displayed in public places?
>
IMO, incorrect. ALL Rights are UNLIMITED; it’s the repercussions one has to account for (IE: the fallacy of ‘not screaming FIRE’...if a fire, *NOT* a problem).
2nd, we *all* know just how “grand” SCOTUS ruling can be *SMH* We already know how “shall not be infringed” has fallen fall victim vs. your prior point.
Please, define “obscene, indecent, a/o profane”, considering. Just as this thread points out, it’s arbitrary to the individual.
Prob. is leaving ‘standards’ up to GOVT, when it fails to follow the Law(s) itself.
Instead of eat, maybe it should be “kiss”
great response...plan to file that one inside my brain!
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.