Sheriff's warning to 'F--- TRUMP' truck owner draws outrage on Facebook

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Isn't the sheriff engaging in this? Giving an ultimatum and threatening a citizen exercising her free speech?

That's all I need. That's violating someone's rights. If the prosecutor engages in this kind of political persecution he/she should be disbarred.

originally posted by: projectvxn
I really don't think it matter what it says.

Okay. As I note in other threads concerning law and interpreting and understanding the verbiage of statutes and legal findings, I'll default to my experience working directly with lawyers and judges and having to do what I just noted as a day job for much of my adult life.

It is therefore not reasonable to say that the words written and displayed fall outside the scope of protected speech if the person who wrote those words or displays those words is not engaging in criminal activity.

Yeah, you didn't read the law, did you? Either that, or you just don't understand the scope of it.

I'm not saying that to be disrespectful, I mean it literally, not with demeaning intent.

But regardless, police and sheriffs don't determine guilt, they just cite people for what they believe are legal infractions. If the judge throws out a ticket based on the law that I cited, that's up to the judge. But this can be debated all day between people who have spent time in court rooms as their day jobs and those who most likely have not, and it'll generally get us nowhere. I've said my piece on it...you can disregard it or see it as possible, that's up to you.

Like I said in my initial comment on this thread, both the truck owner and those calling the sheriff over it are all snowflakes, IMO.

What happened to the good ole days?

a reply to: Liquesence

My wife and I were together, but still had the ridiculously clap trap hoopty Grand Am. We were test driving the Galant that replaced it...so maybe 1996.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But regardless, police and sheriffs don't determine guilt, they just cite people for what they believe are legal infractions.

No they just publicly threaten a citizen over words on a car. Threatening a fine, possible jail time, and if not paid up definite jail time.

I don't care how much time you've spent in a court room slicing up the plain meaning of words, there is such a thing as right and wrong.

originally posted by: justme2
a reply to: RazorV66


LOL...

Totally triggered. You can't hide it. It's obvious! (Sticks wet finger in your ear).

And the sticker is hilarious, even more-so that it triggered law-enforcement. I bet they would have been just fine w/ it if it had been against anyone but Ronald Rump (that's his name right, RIGHT?). lol.

And before you (or anyone) gives the "ohhhh a liberal" response, I'm far from one.

Think outside the box for once.

Whatever you need to get you through the day.
I call them as I see them....only a complete douchebag displays their stupidity in that fashion.
I would bet you if I walked by that idiots house with a Confederate flag, she would piss her panties about it.
If I lived near there, that is exactly what I would do.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Isn't the sheriff engaging in this? Giving an ultimatum and threatening a citizen exercising her free speech?

That's all I need. That's violating someone's rights. If the prosecutor engages in this kind of political persecution he/she should be disbarred.

well maybe, and i wish that was the biggest problem we had to solve in society. Maybe it is because i come from another country with different rights. It wouldnt be a big deal here. Fines are just another tax where i come from (Denmark, the land of taxes) But here nobody would give you a ticket for that, and i agree this is stupid and they should be allowed to have that sticker. But iam not sure i would fire someone over it. But again, you got different rights, and i can understand why it is so importen for you to uphold those rights.

But, as someone watching from the outside, it looks like you lost all those rights many years ago, one small step at the time. And that is a shame, i envy those rights! But this is not the biggest violations of rights in youre country, that is why i think, relax, look at the bigger picture and maybe pick a better fight, but you have to start somewhere offcourse, and this might be the best place to do it, what do i know

a reply to: roadgravel


They can ticket him for obscenity, people honestly have no idea what freedom of speech covers. It does not cover hate speech, incitement to violence. You can absolutely be ticketed for displaying obscenity. I believe "F#@k you for voting for Trump" is both obscene and "fighting words". People really need to educate themselves.

United States[edit]
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."


There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Oh for pity's sake. This is not okay. It's vile. We don't live in an 'anything goes' country, and we never have.
This is BS.

a reply to: Liquesence

SCOTUS rulings only supersede state laws IF all of the details of the infraction are the same. If the defense lawyer wants to argue that his client is protected under the Cohen ruling, that's up to him, but that doesn't mean that a LEO can't ticket them under state law and let the court settle it, because as the state law is written (and the Sheriffs work for the county enforcing local and state laws, not federal court rulings), this truck can be seen to be in violation of the statute that I noted.

Also, you cherry-picked and edited my quote from your source to disregard the part that matters--what a disingenuous tactic to try and continue feeling correct in an argument.

Regardless, we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that, as I've lost interest in this debate and I need to leave.

Best regards.

a reply to: norhoc

It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"

I don't believe this satisfies those conditions. How much time has this person been driving around with these words on his/her vehicle with no recorded incidents of violence tied to the message? If no violence by the mere presence of these words can be said to have occurred then does it meet the requirements of fighting words?

Anyone can be offended by anything. Or has the entire last year simply passed you by?

Now, more than ever is the time to start standing up for speech we might find disagreeable or offensive.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: SlapMonkey


No they just publicly threaten a citizen over words on a car. Threatening a fine, possible jail time, and if not paid up definite jail time.

I don't care how much time you've spent in a court room slicing up the plain meaning of words, there is such a thing as right and wrong.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, we're done.

Hyperbole + disregarding someone's ability to do something that you apparently cannot does not a logical approach make. (anyone who thinks that the language of law includes only "plain meaning of words" is...lacking understanding, to put it nicely)

Best regards...hopefully you're more willing to listen to others who have a better understanding of interpreting statutes. But to be fair to me, I've never argued that the law being applied to this instance is just, I've only argued that it does apply. "Right and wrong" is never something that I argued, nor is it an objective way to deal with such a topic.

It's not "right" to be a jackass via graphics on your vehicle, either, but people do it all of the time.

Peace.

The woman has been arrest for a previous warrant. Ooops...

www.chron.com...

a reply to: projectvxn


Saying F@#k you for voting for Trump are in fact fighting words. If someone walked up to you and said "f you for ...." you would not consider that confrontational? I think you would

a reply to: SlapMonkey

SCOTUS rulings only supersede state laws IF all of the details of the infraction are the same

No, it doesn't.

that doesn't mean that a LEO can't ticket them under state law

I know.

this truck can be seen to be in violation of the statute that I noted.

They couldn't find a legal reason to cite the driver for the display, and the DA disagreed with the disorderly conduct charges because it was not a prosecutable case.

Also, you cherry-picked and edited my quote from your source to disregard the part that matters

I quoted what you quoted.

the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense

without a more compelling reason. Key phrase compelling reason.

"F the draft" is the same as "F Trump."

Both are political speech, contextually. The court would agree.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hyperbole + disregarding someone's ability to do something that you apparently cannot does not a logical approach make. (anyone who thinks that the language of law includes only "plain meaning of words" is...lacking understanding, to put it nicely)

It is the result that matters.

I don't care about your ability to do something. That is not in question here.

“If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, I would like to discuss it with you,” the sheriff wrote. “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.”

Those words are an ultimatum and a threat for nothing more than having words on a car. All because someone's political sensibilities were triggered.

Things like this should not be going on at all. Sicking the law on a fellow citizen because ones feelings are hurt is BS. No amount of legal wrangling changes that.

As I said, it is the result that matters. If a law produces a result where a citizen can be legally persecuted for exercising their rights then it is the law that is wrong.

Nehls wrote on Facebook that a county prosecutor had agreed to accept disorderly conduct charges — an opinion that District Attorney John Healey disputes, as does the ACLU of Texas.

State law describes disorderly conduct as intentionally using "abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace." The law also prohibits making "an offensive gesture or display in a public place" that could have the same effect.

Getting Trump followers "riled up" into a fit might work as a breach.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Liquesence

My wife and I were together, but still had the ridiculously clap trap hoopty Grand Am. We were test driving the Galant that replaced it...so maybe 1996.

Ah, the ruling I cited was in 2013. Maybe you could have set a precedent.

I guess it's easier and cheaper to just pay the fine?

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: projectvxn


Saying F@#k you for voting for Trump are in fact fighting words. If someone walked up to you and said "f you for ...." you would not consider that confrontational? I think you would

That would cause you to assault someone?

Sometimes you just have to overlook those type of people.

originally posted by: roadgravel
The woman has been arrest for a previous warrant. Ooops...

www.chron.com...

Go figure....not only is she an idiot, she is a criminal idiot.
Perfect storm of stupidity, driving around in a truck with a billboard that says "F Trump and everyone that voted for him" with outstanding warrants.
If it wasn't so sad, if would be hilarious.