It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: projectvxn
I really don't think it matter what it says.
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.
But regardless, police and sheriffs don't determine guilt, they just cite people for what they believe are legal infractions.
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.
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.
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"
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.
SCOTUS rulings only supersede state laws IF all of the details of the infraction are the same
that doesn't mean that a LEO can't ticket them under state law
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
without a more compelling reason. Key phrase compelling reason.
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
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)
“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.”
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.
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.
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
originally posted by: roadgravel
The woman has been arrest for a previous warrant. Ooops...
www.chron.com...