Judge: Woman Who Cursed Out Toilet Protected Under 1st Amendment

Fox news. com ^ | Dec 14, 2007 | AP

[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-

[muawiyah]

Note that Madison understood full well that the First Amendment depended on the existence of the Third Amendment. From time to time I post the whole argument that links the First, Second and Third together as a rational basis for LIBERTY.

[muawiyah]

I was responding to the claim that the unsubstantiated word of an offduty cop should be sufficient for a court to throw over First Amendment liberties.

A poster just above argued that James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, said the federal government had no right to shut this woman up. By extension neither do the states, and certainly not that neighborhood.

[muawiyah]

"Interrogate" is the word ~ it's sooooo PC to say "question" or "examine".

Some actually prefer the colorful "grill".

[muawiyah]

Used to be printing was expensive stuff.

Now, regarding early pornography, there are these drawings done in the 7th, 8th, 9th century in Scandinavia ~ incredible ~ all with a political implication in fact.

Political porn is the foundation of politics in Western civilization (in part).

[jiggyboy]

I myself welcome this ruling. I will be working on my car in the driveway this afternoon.

i.e., I was anticipitating cursing in public!

[Nephi]

The public use of profanity certainly can and should be regulated by LOCAL government if that is what the local population votes for.

Local governments have limits on their authority to regulate profanity (see post #97). The judge ruled correctly in this case.

The constitution is a limitation on federal power, not state power:

Constitutional Law is based on a formal document that defines broad powers. Federal constitutional law originates from the U.S. constitution. State constitutional law originates from the individual state constitutions.

Statutes and Ordinances are legislation passed on the federal, state, or local levels.

The US constitution had no jurisdiction and was irrelevant to Ms. Herb's case and it is important for you to understand that.

[shbox]

You don’t understand.....

In my neighborhood it is understood that when a man starts working on something, he will have an audience of other men in a short time.

Now its going to drive me crazy knowing that you will be working on your car and I probably have a tool that you need.

I can hear a mitre saw from a mile away and my brand new 18volt lithium ion combo kit cries out to me until I can’t take it anymore and I have to go investigate.

[Ken H]

The constitution is a limitation on federal power, not state power:

Wrong with regard to state power.

1. See Art. I, Sec. 10. The phrase "No State shall..." appears 3 times, IIRC.

2. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Constitutional Law is based on a formal document that defines broad powers. Federal constitutional law originates from the U.S. constitution. State constitutional law originates from the individual state constitutions.

Correct.

Statutes and Ordinances are legislation passed on the federal, state, or local levels.

Correct again.

The US constitution had no jurisdiction and was irrelevant to Ms. Herb's case and it is important for you to understand that.

Wrong.

Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

_______________________________

That's 2 out of 4 correct, with some fundamental misunderstandings in your incorrect answers. Recommended remedial reading:

http://constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

[shbox]

dang

[Nephi]

1. See Art. I, Sec. 10. The phrase "No State shall..." appears 3 times, IIRC.

You're referring to the section that deals with trade, or a FEDERAL matter. Unless, you're trying to make a connection through interstate commerce? It's been done before, so who could blame you for trying again, but some of us conservatives haven't given up trying to point out that the interstate clause is a judicial over reach.

2. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people...

...should they decide that they want to define public decorum.

For instance, when the first draft of the first amendment was written, it was feared that it was too stringent and would force the closure of the then established state religions, demonstrating that the first amendment was to limit the federal establishment of religion, but not the state established religions.

I rest my case.

Article XIV: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Of course, we were talking about the first amendment and the framer's intent. Interesting that you are finally able to buttress your belief in the supremacy of the central government with the amendment that was fraudulently ratified by the "great centralizer 80 years later." It appears, however, that you missed this escape clause, "... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Besides never being lawfully ratified, the fourteenth amendment has other problems in that it attempts to circumvent congressional ability to define the jurisdiction of the courts and making illegals equivalent to citizens. In summary, swearing at your toilet isn't polite social behavior, but let's not make a federal issue out of it, okay?

[Nachoman]

This is a good ruling, considering profanity is the official language of plumbing.

[Ken H]

Unless, you're trying to make a connection through interstate commerce?

I cited I.10 as one of the counterpoints to your claim that the Constitution only limits the feds. I have no idea why you brought the Commerce Clause into this.

For the record, I agree with Justice Thomas, rather than Justice Scalia, on the original meaning of the Commerce Clause.

Which of the two do you think has it right?

...the amendment that was fraudulently ratified by the "great centralizer 80 years later."

My favorite Justice, Clarence Thomas, appears to accept XIV as legitimate:

 Justice Washington's opinion in Corfield indisputably influenced the Members of Congress who enacted the Fourteenth Amendment. When Congress gathered to debate the Fourteenth Amendment, members frequently, if not as a matter of course, appealed to Corfield, arguing that the Amendment was necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights that Justice Washington identified in his opinion.

--Saenz v Roe