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

Why is it that, in this thread, people can't separate the ability to dislike a certain law but also understand that certain laws are valid and can be enforced since they're current penal statutes in the state?

The unwillingness to understand--actually comprehend--the law(s) and how they apply to certain situations in leu of invoking feelings and appearances is a major part of the problem.

The sheriff MUST be triggered because he's a Republican--the appeal to find the truck and owner can't possibly be because his office has gotten numerous calls, and since there's a law against what the truck owners are doing, he wants to correct the infraction. Right?

This MUST be political persecution because the name "Trump" shows up in it--it can't possibly be because the most probable reason that someone would put that on their vehicle and drive around in public with it in plain view is to elicit anger and emotional responses from weak-minded people (which, obviously, are plentiful in today's society). Right?

Wrong.

Look, if the message had only been "F**K TRUMP," I don't think that there would be a law against it, but adding "AND F**K YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM" is an obvious attempt to piss people off who voted for Trump. You cannot go around, every day, in society and basically tell 45%* of the voters "F**K YOU" and not expect that to cause yourself some problems; there are laws against doing that, whether certain people in this thread want to accept that or not.

Here's the reality of life: The first amendment--a foundation of our country--is not absolute, and not everything goes when done in public in such an inciting way.

The message in this window sticker is not protected by the Cohen ruling of 1971, as I read it, nor is the law that defines its illegality nullified by that ruling. The fact that LEOs haven't cited the truck is irrelevant--not all LEOs understand every statute nor can they research every statute while a vehicle is pulled over. The fact that the current DA claims that the case, if it went that far, wouldn't be prosecutable is irrelevant, as the DA hasn't heard all of the facts surrounding the motives of displaying such a decal.

The law exists and applies to this sticker, for better or for worse. There should not be the invocation of "feelings" or concerns over "appearances" or arguments about non-applicable SCOTUS rulings to try and say that the law doesn't apply. It does, whether we like it or not. All other tangents are irrelevant to the fact that the truck owner(s) can be cited.

Directly quoted from the SCOTUS decision in Cohen vs. California:

This Court has also held that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called "fighting words," those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). While the four-letter word displayed by Cohen in relation to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally provocative fashion, in this instance it was clearly not "directed to the person of the hearer." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 (1940). No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant's jacket as a direct personal insult.

As hopefully you can see, when the word is used in a phrase that is defined as "fighting words" and direceted to ordinary citizens, the state is "free to ban the simple use" of the word. This is EXACTLY what is happening with this window decal, and is EXACTLY why the Cohen decision differs.

Whether or not it would get thrown out by a judge or tried by a DA in court is a matter that can be discussed and followed after the fact, but trying to predict such things does no one any favors.

Regardless, I still stand behind my statement that the truck owner(s) AND the people calling the sheriff's office about the truck are both the snowflakiest of snowflakes, even if there is a law forbidding the decal.



*The breakdown of voting in the county was Trump (44.78%), hence the 45% figure. Fort Bend Election Results

The guy with the truck was arrested for outstanding warrants so not the brightest even for a liberal.

originally posted by: mikell
The guy with the truck was arrested for outstanding warrants so not the brightest even for a liberal.

Lmao. He had warrants and still drove around with that on his bumper? What an effing retard.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: CB328

this insidious hatred for people who don't vote how YOU want them to is disgusting

Well those people are destroying our country and the planet, so they deserve to be attacked as far as I'm concerned.

Said the terrorist. Oh wait what?

Wanna screenshot your stupid ass post and send to the damm feds. You should be watched.

He also thinks all gun owners and 2A supporters shouldn't be allowed to live.

The Sheriff is wrong.

The Truck owner is wrong.

EFF them both.

She was in jail for ID fraud. Another illegal???? Good for Sheriff Nehls! We need more like him...

Here is your hero...just another illegal supporter.

"https://www.click2houston.com/news/-f-trump-truck-sticker-photo-goes-viral-leads-to-search-for-driver"

a reply to: CB328

Which says more about you than you might realize...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The message in this window sticker is not protected by the Cohen ruling of 1971

Yes, it is protected, for reasons already given and cited per Cohen.

Directly quoted from the SCOTUS decision in Cohen vs. California:

This Court has also held that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called "fighting words,"

Legally, the display in question is not fighting words, if you look at Chaplinsky, for it to constitute "fighting words" in the legal definition. You're arguing that anyone who takes offense or gets triggered can say "those are fighting words" as a legal justification, when Chaplinsky makes it clear what fighting words are and are not.

They aren't fighting words because of the manner in which they are expressed.

It's protected free expression/speech.

ETA:

For the sake of redundancy, this bears re-quoting:

Officers have pulled her over but failed to find a reason for writing a ticket.

Nehls wrote on Facebook that a county prosecutor had agreed to accept disorderly conduct charges — an opinion that District Attorney John Healey disputes, [. . .]
"I did not believe it was a prosecutable case based on the definition of disorderly conduct," Healey said.

Officers could not find a reason to cite, and the DA did not think it was a legally prosecutable case.

originally posted by: neo96

The Truck owner is wrong.

Why is the truck owner wrong?

Serious question.

a reply to: Liquesence

"I did not believe it was a prosecutable case based on the definition of disorderly conduct," Healey said.

It starts to look more and more like this sheriff got his panties in a bunch and it trying to throw his weight around.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Liquesence

"I did not believe it was a prosecutable case based on the definition of disorderly conduct," Healey said.

It starts to look more and more like this sheriff got his panties in a bunch and it trying to throw his weight around.

I tend to agree.

Additionally, the local population is also getting triggered, but there's little that can legally be done, so he's throwing his weight around.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You cannot post swears in public places like your truck. Laws forbid it. So,free speech is limited.

a reply to: Liquesence

Because it breaks the law and they are a douche who can't get over the election.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: DBCowboy

You cannot post swears in public places like your truck. Laws forbid it. So,free speech is limited.

That's #ing bull#!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Check your local ordinances, or better yet, put that same sticker on your Truck and see what happens.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Liquesence

Because it breaks the law

No, it doesn't.

Read the thread so I don't waste my breath.

a reply to: Liquesence

Reread my post above where I specified that it breaks local decency ordinances.

Maybe you should reread the thread because she WAS arrested. Why!? If she broke no laws!!!??? She broke local indecency ordinances!! In other words a law!

Woman with 'F__k Trump' sticker arrested

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Liquesence

Reread my post above where I specified that it breaks local decency ordinances.

They couldn't find a reason to cite her.

SCOTUS says you can display it, as it's protected speech.

Read the thread and educate yourself.

a reply to: Liquesence

Read my post above since you seem to have trouble grasping information. They didn't charge her because it would be a silly use of the law and legal system. And yes, I believe she exercised free speech, BUT local indecency laws overrule that free speech when it is deemed offensive, like the swearing displayed on her car. I know you are not a lawyer so I'll cut you some slack.