Posted on 12/14/2007 11:32:59 AM PST by RDTF
SCRANTON, Pa. — A woman who was cited for loudly cursing at her overflowing toilet — and then at a neighbor who told her to quiet down — has been acquitted on First Amendment grounds.
District Judge Terrence Gallagher dismissed the disorderly conduct charge against Dawn Herb, 33, ruling Thursday that she was within her rights when she let loose a string of profanities Oct. 11.
Although the language she used "may be considered by some to be offensive, vulgar and imprudent ... (it is) protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment," the judge wrote.
Herb was cited after Patrick Gilman, a police officer who lives near Herb, called authorities to complain.
At a hearing Monday, Gilman testified that he was at home, off duty, when his 12-year-old daughter ran in and said she had heard loud curses coming from a house down the street.
Gilman said he went outside, heard the bad language and yelled out to Herb to "watch your mouth." He said that she cursed at him instead. That's when Gilman called authorities.
In Pennsylvania, someone can be convicted of disorderly conduct for using obscene language in a way that causes "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm."
But Barry Dyller, who represented Herb on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said rulings over the past 20 years have established that "colorful language" isn't illegal. He praised the judge's ruling.
"He's exactly right ... in his reasoning," Dyller said. "And it's important that the public understands this."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Just because a black-robed potentate says it is doesn't mean that has anything to do with original intent. I don't know about you, but I think it's long past time we stopped acting like it does.
So this is what conservatism has come to? Having a mad on to grill a twelve year old so someone can have the precious privilege to scream obscenities? Good grief.
So, you have to take a shot at all cops because you think this guy was a jerk?
Where is the girl's sworn testimony in court? What cooboration did the cop have for his possibly fanciful tale?
Don't just buy into these things until you take a look at the evidence.
That's gotta' include putting the girl on the stand.
Exactly, the opposition's words (no matter what words they were) would be "profanity" as defined by those in power.
So, yes, Conservatism has come to this, that the accused have a right to face his accusers and to compel witnesses, etc.
We have a whole body of law employing thousands of lawyers based on just this one little thing.
I couldn't agree more. Let's see what James Madison had to say about the First Amendment:
So insatiable is a love of power that it has resorted to a distinction between the freedom and licentiousness of the press for the purpose of converting the third amendment of the Constitution, which was dictated by the most lively anxiety to preserve that freedom, into an instrument for abridging it.
--James Madison, Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 23 Jan. 1799 Writings 6:333--36
______________________________________
Is, then, the Federal Government, it will be asked, destitute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous attacks which may be made on those who administer it?
The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, Jan. 1800 Writings 6:385--401
______________________________________
It appears that Madison believed the First Amendment protected licentiousness when it came to freedom the press.
In light of Madison's writings, what evidence do you have that the original intent/meaning of the First Amendment was only meant to protect political and religious speech?
Don't just buy into these things until you take a look at the evidence.
You've made a bunch of conclusions with no evidence, but you sure are on a high horse about it. That's gotta' include putting the girl on the stand.
How do you know her lawyer didn't? I'll answer that for you: Because you bought into something before you took a look at the evidence.
Please, like that's what you meant. Peopel don't use the term "interrogate" when they're talking about putting someone on the stand at trial.
And you still are assuming that she never got a chance to confront the kid, because it fits your prejudices. there's nothing in the story that says so either way, and if she had that right taken from her the judge would have thrown the case out on that basis or on that basis and the 1st Amendment.
Was porn still illegal in the colonies?
I have no idea.
What is your answer to my question?
Now you are trying to stir the pot? Forget it.
In light of Madison's writings, what evidence do you have that the original intent/meaning of the First Amendment was only meant to protect political and religious speech?
If the First Amendment applied to all speech equally, pornography, obscenity (and possibly libel, slander and sedition) would have been protected. And yet they weren't.
In Madison's time, the First Amendment applied only to Congress. Do you accept that James Madison thought that the First Amendment - where it applied - protected licentiousness by the press?
Also, if Madison and the other Framers really did believe that valid "licentiousness" included obscenity, why did it take until late in the 20th Century for the courts to discover this plain truth?
Here's a link to the writings I quoted from. Does the context change whether Madison believed the First Amendment - where it applied - protected licentiousness by the press?
For example, what instances of licentiousness was he referring to? I mean, since we're talking about obscenity being/not being under First Amendment protection, was he referring to obscenity in American newspapers?
AFAIK, he only says it protects licentiousness by the press, so I'd have to know how the term was understood in 1789.
Also, if Madison and the other Framers really did believe that valid "licentiousness" included obscenity, why did it take until late in the 20th Century for the courts to discover this plain truth?
Are you sure the Court has said "obscenity" is protected? My understanding is that they make a distinction between vulgarity/profanity vs obscenity.
Either way, Madison made it clear that the First Amendment protected at least some degree of licentiousness. If your position is that the First Amendment was meant to protect political and religious speech only, then you are in conflict with Madison.
The Framers (and their successors in American government) allowed certain types of non-religious-non-political speech to be banned. When you have an explanation for that which fits your assertions, get back to me.
When you called me a liberal, you admitted defeat. Thanks for playing, and please come back when you wise up. In the meantime, be sure and keep policing your neighbor’s language in their own homes.
Please answer this: Do you doubt that the term "licentiousness" meant some degree of vice/immorality in 1789, regardless of whether it included "obscenity"?
Madison flat out said the First Amendment protected licentiousness, which means he believed the First applied to more than just political and religious speech. I don't know how you can argue otherwise.
The Framers (and their successors in American government) allowed certain types of non-religious-non-political speech to be banned.
What are some examples of Framers "allowing" Congress to ban such? Did Madison approve?
Also, if Madison and the other Framers really did believe that valid "licentiousness" included obscenity, why did it take until late in the 20th Century for the courts to discover this plain truth?
Is it your assertion that the Court has ruled that "obscenity" is protected speech?
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.