Pol-Breaking news...people are morons. And I'm a person.

[GrantDawg]

Driver fights ticket for bumper sticker

By CHANDLER BROWN (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/dekalb/stories/mailto:[email protected])
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/28/06 It was 9:30 on a recent Friday night when Denise Grier saw blue lights in her rearview mirror.
She pulled over on Chamblee-Tucker Road, unaware of her infraction.
"The officer asked if I knew I had a lewd decal on my car and I thought, 'Oh gosh, what did my kids put on my car?' "
As it turns out, the decal was an anti-Bush bumper sticker Grier slapped on her 2001 Chrysler Sebring last summer. The bumper sticker — "I'm Tired Of All The BUSH—" — contains an expletive.
The officer "said DeKalb had an ordinance about lewd decals and wrote me a ticket" for $100, said Grier, an oncology nurse at Emory University Hospital who lives in Athens.
Grier said she thanked the officer — and vowed to see him in court.
"This is all about free speech," Grier said in a telephone interview Monday. "The officer pulled me over because he didn't agree with my politics. That's what this is about, not whether I support Bush, not because of the war in Iraq, but about my right to free speech."
Officer Herschel Grangent Jr., a spokesman for the DeKalb County Police Department, confirmed the incident Monday but said he couldn't "speculate on or discuss another officer's decision to write a citation."
Grangent said he not know of any ordinance dealing strictly with bumper stickers but noted the county's sign ordinance prohibits public displays that "contain words, pictures, or statements which are obscene."
"Only that officer knows what his or her probable cause was, and only that officer can discuss it or testify to it," Grangent said.
The officer's name is not legible on a copy of the ticket Grier e-mailed to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Grangent said he didn't know who it was.
Grangent said he wasn't sure how many people have been ticketed for lewd bumper stickers but considered it a rare occurrence.
Grier, 47, the mother of four grown sons, is due in Recorder's Court on April 18. She has not removed the bumper sticker in question, or six other mostly politically oriented decals on her car. "I used to think that one person could not make a difference," said Grier. "Now I'm beginning to think one person can, and should. We shouldn't be afraid to stand up for what we believe in."
</TD></TR></TABLE><!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[GrantDawg]

This law was passed back in the "___it happens" bumper sticker days. It is not politically motivated, but the law. Now here is some idiot who thinks they can break the law because there is some political message. You can say the same thing without breaking the law. Grrrr...

[flere-imsaho]

Our tax dollars at work.

[Cringer]

A law is a law I guess.

With that said, I would break it if I loved a bumpersticker enough I guess. I am against someone else telling me what is obscene/lewd for me. Good thing for my wallet I don't like bumper stickers a ton, but I probably have a couple shirts that would get me in trouble.

[RendeR]

The cop is a fucking idiot, she has every right to put whatever she wants on her car, if you don't want to see such things, don't look at other people's bumper stickers.

She'll win this one. The law will be struck down. If it doesn't go her way in this court appearence there are a few thousand attornies who will beat her doors down to take this on all the way to the top for the publicity alone.

What the hell were they thinking they'd accomplish by trying to legislate something this trivial for in the first place? IS there something in the water down their? Sheesh.

[Cringer]

What the hell were they thinking they'd accomplish by trying to legislate something this trivial for in the first place? IS there something in the water down their? Sheesh.

It's not just down there. That is a law in many places. 'Bad words' are a no-no in many areas.

[clintl]

The whole concept of "bad words" is completely silly in the first place. All it does is give certain words a power they wouldn't otherwise have.

[Cuckoo]

The cop is a fucking idiot, she has every right to put whatever she wants on her car, if you don't want to see such things, don't look at other people's bumper stickers.

She'll win this one. The law will be struck down. If it doesn't go her way in this court appearence there are a few thousand attornies who will beat her doors down to take this on all the way to the top for the publicity alone.

What the hell were they thinking they'd accomplish by trying to legislate something this trivial for in the first place? IS there something in the water down their? Sheesh.

:confused:

I don't see what's so wrong with legislation against crude images and/or words being displayed publicly, which is essentially what it is when you drive your car on public roads.

I would guess the law will not be struck down (if there is indeed a law there), and she'll lose the case.

But maybe I'm just nuts.

[Cuckoo]

The whole concept of "bad words" is completely silly in the first place. All it does is give certain words a power they wouldn't otherwise have.

DOLA

And yet, at the same time, I agree with this. Go figure. :D

[RendeR]

It's not just down there. That is a law in many places. 'Bad words' are a no-no in many areas.


Wow, guess I'll just go on ignoring stupidity on this level then. If I ever get ticketed for something this assinine I'll take it as far as I have to.

Free speech isn't just verbal, laws like these should be struck, period.

[Cringer]

Wow, guess I'll just go on ignoring stupidity on this level then. If I ever get ticketed for something this assinine I'll take it as far as I have to.

Free speech isn't just verbal, laws like these should be struck, period.

Agreed. Especially when I wear my "I Fucked The Chick In Hanson" t-shirt. :)

[RendeR]

:confused:

I don't see what's so wrong with legislation against crude images and/or words being displayed publicly, which is essentially what it is when you drive your car on public roads.

I would guess the law will not be struck down (if there is indeed a law there), and she'll lose the case.

But maybe I'm just nuts.

The reasoning being that what is lewd or crude to some is normal to others. It's far too subjective, unless they specificly state each and every word or image this particular law covers it will be considered too general and she'll win her case.

Just because person A thinks the word "cunt" is nasty and shouldn't be shown publicly is not a valid reason to curtail someone elses rights to freedom of speech. While I understand that this country has had its head up its ass for decades, I firmly believe that there is NO place in our laws for controlling an individuals moral standards.

This reminds me of the confederate flag plate on a workers truck story, what actually came of that one?

[Cuckoo]

The reasoning being that what is lewd or crude to some is normal to others. It's far too subjective, unless they specificly state each and every word or image this particular law covers it will be considered too general and she'll win her case.

Just because person A thinks the word "cunt" is nasty and shouldn't be shown publicly is not a valid reason to curtail someone elses rights to freedom of speech. While I understand that this country has had its head up its ass for decades, I firmly believe that there is NO place in our laws for controlling an individuals moral standards.

Fair enough, and I understand your point.

But shouldn't the community have the right to determine their standards, what they consider to be lewd? Her free speech is not being curtailed at all. She has every right to state her beliefs as long as she doesn't do so in a way that violates that law.

I guess I'm of the mind that each community draws their own lines. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in an area where I can drive down the street and have my kids see porn or violence or curse words, etc. displayed on the car in front of us. So I'm glad my community draws the line to not allow those in public areas.

[RendeR]

Agreed. Especially when I wear my "I Fucked The Chick In Hanson" t-shirt. :)

Yeah, I mean, I've got all these "I Rode Cringer's Ass like a Bad Mule" T-shirts to sell, with ignorant legislation like these out there I'll never get them off the shelf ;)




EDIT: spelling, and on this topic, why the hell don't we have a spellchecker in here? every other freaking board I go to has one, why don't we?

[Mustang]

EDIT: spelling, and on this topic, why the hell don't we have a spellchecker in here? every other freaking board I go to has one, why don't we?

Don't worry, you didn't spell cunt wrong.

[gstelmack]

The cop is a fucking idiot

, she has every right to put whatever she wants on her car, if you don't want to see such things, don't look at other people's bumper stickers.

She'll win this one. The law will be struck down. If it doesn't go her way in this court appearence there are a few thousand attornies who will beat her doors down to take this on all the way to the top for the publicity alone.

What the hell were they thinking they'd accomplish by trying to legislate something this trivial for in the first place? IS there something in the water down their? Sheesh.

The first phrase doesn't go with the rest of your post. So now you want the police to choose which laws they enforce and which they don't?

[RendeR]

Fair enough, and I understand your point.

But shouldn't the community have the right to determine their standards, what they consider to be lewd? Her free speech is not being curtailed at all. She has every right to state her beliefs as long as she doesn't do so in a way that violates that law.

I guess I'm of the mind that each community draws their own lines. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in an area where I can drive down the street and have my kids see porn or violence or curse words, etc. displayed on the car in front of us. So I'm glad my community draws the line to not allow those in public areas.


Its all about how much of your personal freedom you're willing to give up. personally, I'd rather teach my kids what I consider right and wrong and not worry about what they see in public as they'll know, FROM ME, what is ok or not, they'll see things like that and know where my family stands on such things.

Its not up to society and the legal system to protect you and yours from words and ideas, thats our jobs as parents.

[RendeR]

The first phrase doesn't go with the rest of your post. So now you want the police to choose which laws they enforce and which they don't?


The cop is an idiot becuase his ticket was politically motivated, period. Unless he can prove he has a record of ticketing every single offensive word he sees on bumper stickers he's a complete idiot for trying to use this piece of legal tripe to "nab a liberal" so to speak.

Cops choose every single day wether to enforce laws or not. Do you see them pulling over EVERY speeding vehicle? no, they pick and choose. Your argument fails here, sorry.

[Cringer]

Yeah, I mean, I've got all these "I Rode Cringer's Ass like a Bad Mule" T-shirts to sell, with ignorant legislation like these out there I'll never get them off the shelf ;)





I want a couple of those shirts!

[Cuckoo]

Its all about how much of your personal freedom you're willing to give up. personally, I'd rather teach my kids what I consider right and wrong and not worry about what they see in public as they'll know, FROM ME, what is ok or not, they'll see things like that and know where my family stands on such things.

Its not up to society and the legal system to protect you and yours from words and ideas, thats our jobs as parents.

And I personally would rather have my job made a bit easier by them not seeing conflicting messages. In other words, I say it's wrong, but the law says it's perfectly acceptable.

I wouldn't take that down the slippery slope, though, and I suppose I draw the line where personal freedoms are actually being given up. I disagree with you on that as well. She has every right to express herself as long as she does so in a way that meets those community standards.

It would be somewhat analogous to demonstrations, I suppose. A group can legally demonstrate and give their opinions in the vast majority of circumstances, but courts generally begin to restrain that when it becomes overly disruptive toward others - the old "you have freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't violate someone else's freedom" argument... in this case, other people's "freedom" to not be exposed to those words or images.

It's an interesting question indeed, and I'm trying to think of other similar legal issues. I would guess that, in a way, restaurant smoking bans are close, although obviously differentiated by health concerns. The question probably boils down to whether someone (the other drivers in this case) has an actual "freedom" to not be exposed to those things. I would say they do; many would say not. That would be why I'm generally in favor of the individual communities setting their standards on such issues.

Either way, if the officer sought her out strictly for her "political" message, he's stupid. But she's also stupid for thinking she can break the law just because it is a political message. Plenty of stupidity to go around.

[RendeR]

I want a couple of those shirts!


:D:D:D:D

[wade moore]

The cop is an idiot becuase his ticket was politically motivated, period. Unless he can prove he has a record of ticketing every single offensive word he sees on bumper stickers he's a complete idiot for trying to use this piece of legal tripe to "nab a liberal" so to speak.

Cops choose every single day wether to enforce laws or not. Do you see them pulling over EVERY speeding vehicle? no, they pick and choose. Your argument fails here, sorry.

It's a good thing you know this cop's performance history so that we can intelligently discuss this issue.

[RendeR]

And I personally would rather have my job made a bit easier....(snip)


And THIS is exactly why I am so against such things. You're job isn't supposed to be made easier by anyone. It is YOUR responsibility, not anyone elses, to teach and raise your children, no matter what they see, hear, read, or are otherwise exposed to.

I understand that you have the "let the village raise them to my standards" mentality, but as another member of the broader "village" you don't have the right to put that responsibility on others.

Its a big bad world out there, no matter how many laws or guidelines society sets up the negative imagery and words and ideas are still there and will still find your children. Don't expect "society" to set up to your giudelines and standards. Raise your kids YOUR way, teach them what you believe and want them to believe. Then when they inevitably are exposed to such things you'll know that you've taught them as well as you can and they will survive such exposure.

[RendeR]

It's a good thing you know this cop's performance history so that we can intelligently discuss this issue.


I don't have to know it, its patently obsurd to think he tickets every single incidence of this he sees. See the speeding ticket example above. I don't have to see his track record to assume his stance wasn't just "protecting society from a bad word" its just silly.

Now on the other side of that, if they can truly proove that he DOES exactly that, then this case is a moot point and everything will go the other way. No matter my feelings on the matter.


How much do YOU want to wager on who's right on this one? I'll take my trust in human nature and say he's being a prick, and I'm confident in that assumption.

[Cuckoo]

I understand that you have the "let the village raise them to my standards" mentality, but as another member of the broader "village" you don't have the right to put that responsibility on others.

Its a big bad world out there, no matter how many laws or guidelines society sets up the negative imagery and words and ideas are still there and will still find your children. Don't expect "society" to set up to your giudelines and standards. Raise your kids YOUR way, teach them what you believe and want them to believe. Then when they inevitably are exposed to such things you'll know that you've taught them as well as you can and they will survive such exposure.

Actually, I have the exact opposite of the "village" mentality when it comes to raising my children. You have either misread what I said or grossly exaggerated to meet your "impression" of me.

I expect "society" to set up its own guidelines and standards, based on the community's general feelings about what is right and wrong. I will do my best to place myself within a community that generally agrees with my standards (or as closely as possible), and then I will indeed teach my children what I believe.

You have "snipped" the rest of my post and apparently ignored it as you don't even begin to address the issue of conflicting "freedoms." Obviously you feel like nobody has any freedom to not be exposed to things they find offensive in a public place, regardless of the consensus of community standards. I disagree with that. Thanks for the discussion.

[wade moore]

I don't have to know it, its patently obsurd to think he tickets every single incidence of this he sees. See the speeding ticket example above. I don't have to see his track record to assume his stance wasn't just "protecting society from a bad word" its just silly.

Now on the other side of that, if they can truly proove that he DOES exactly that, then this case is a moot point and everything will go the other way. No matter my feelings on the matter.


How much do YOU want to wager on who's right on this one? I'll take my trust in human nature and say he's being a prick, and I'm confident in that assumption.

I personally prefer to not be a dick and get the facts first, but to each his own.

[Cringer]

I don't blame the cop. He knows the local laws, I consider that a good thing.

[Ben E Lou]

Sure, cops pick and choose which "minor" laws they're going to enforce. So, you want to avoid getting a ticket for a "minor" law? Here's a 100% fool-proff way: DON'T BREAK THE MINOR LAWS. Don't break one, and then bitch that you got caught. Was she in violation of the law? Yes. End of discussion on that matter.

If she wants to challenge that the law shouldn't exist at ALL, then that's another matter entirely, but to bitch about the cop writing a ticket for this is just plain stupid.

Given the location of the ticket-writing (doesn't say where on Chamblee-Tucker Rd., but this could have been as close as a half mile from my house), I wonder if this was one of the cops I know.

[RendeR]

I personally prefer to not be a dick and get the facts first, but to each his own.


Life experience has shown me that if I expect the worst, 90% of the time I'm not disspointed and 10% of the time I'm pleasently shocked.

Seriously, cna you look at that situation and HONESTLY believe he wasn't just trying to be an asshole? I can't. If I'm proven wrong, all the better! Really, I'll gladly change my tune if he tickets stuff like this ALL the time, but experience is a good guideline and in general, cops aren't going to enforce shit like this unless they have a mitigating reason.

If I'm wrong all the better, really, but humanity doesn't shock me often.

[wade moore]

Life experience has shown me that if I expect the worst, 90% of the time I'm not disspointed and 10% of the time I'm pleasently shocked.

Seriously, cna you look at that situation and HONESTLY believe he wasn't just trying to be an asshole? I can't. If I'm proven wrong, all the better! Really, I'll gladly change my tune if he tickets stuff like this ALL the time, but experience is a good guideline and in general, cops aren't going to enforce shit like this unless they have a mitigating reason.

If I'm wrong all the better, really, but humanity doesn't shock me often.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time looking at this situation and believing that you aren't trying to be an asshole.

[Shepp]

Freedom of speach is not a universal right. You don't need to look any further than netork television and how the FCC regulates it as an example. To repeat what Cukoo stated above, the law has to protect everyone. Person A has just as much right to leave the house and not be bombarded with profanity and vulgarity as person B has to speak whats on his mind.

If the cop was an idiot for writing that lady a ticket. The lady was an idiot for picking that sticker. There are about a billion anti-Bush stickers, T-shirts, and whatever out there that don't contain any sort of profanity. How come she didn't choose a different one?

[RendeR]

Sure, cops pick and choose which "minor" laws they're going to enforce. So, you want to avoid getting a ticket for a "minor" law? Here's a 100% fool-proff way: DON'T BREAK THE MINOR LAWS. Don't break one, and then bitch that you got caught. Was she in violation of the law? Yes. End of discussion on that matter.

If she wants to challenge that the law shouldn't exist at ALL, then that's another matter entirely, but to bitch about the cop writing a ticket for this is just plain stupid.

Given the location of the ticket-writing (doesn't say where on Chamblee-Tucker Rd., but this could have been as close as a half mile from my house), I wonder if this was one of the cops I know.


This law, IMO, is unconstitutional, and apparently it is to her as well. So she's fighting it. I see no problem with breaking/fighting laws that infringe on my rights. Just because he had a law to back him up doesn't particularly prove that he wasn't just being an asshole SD. Its not about wether she should have been ticketed, she probably didn't even know or would have ever soncidered that such an ignorant thing existed.

I honestly would love to see a track record of him stopping ALL such things, really I would, at least them I can admit I was wrong about my assumption of his motivation.

I seriously believe that laws like this are wrong. Towns/vilages/cities/hell even states shouldn't have the right to limit my self expression, thats one of our basic freedoms. You have EVERY ability to ignore what you see in public. what you choose to lock your eyes on and read is up to you. If I don't like something I see, well I'll know enough to not look at it next time eh?

Self responsibility. This nation needs a HUGE freaking dose of it.

[RendeR]

Honestly, I'm having a hard time looking at this situation and believing that you aren't trying to be an asshole.
Why? because I disagree with you? Because I BELIEVE that this cop was just being a royal prick and that I believe that due to my own experience with the police?

Where in this am *I* just trying to be an asshole? I'm just telling you what I think and feel on the matter. What am *I* doing that you think is just being prickish? seriously?



EDIT: just to add that I'm rather hurt that you think this. I'm hoping you're just trying to rile me up or something. I think I've been amazingly restrained in this discussion thus far.

[RendeR]

I don't blame the cop. He knows the local laws, I consider that a good thing.

I blame the cop because I believe he used his "knowledge" to persue his own agenda. If I'm wrong, awesome, I'm wrong and we have a real good guy out there.

I doubt I'm wrong.

[Ben E Lou]

This law, IMO, is unconstitutional, and apparently it is to her as well. So she's fighting it. I see no problem with breaking/fighting laws that infringe on my rights. Just because he had a law to back him up doesn't particularly prove that he wasn't just being an asshole SD.Where did I say whether or not I care whether or not he's being an "asshole." I don't care. I'm not a cop, so he's not one of my own. My point is simply that it's idiotic to complain about the fact that you were ticketed when you broke a law. Complain about the LAW, not the ticket. As I said earlier, if she's concerned about the ticket, there's a 100% fool-proof method to avoid getting that ticket: pick one of the thousands of anti-Bush bumper stickers that don't include profanity.


"When you call the tune, you have to pay the piper."
-Rowdy Roddy Piper

[Ben E Lou]

Self responsibility. This nation needs a HUGE freaking dose of it.Yup. She was responsible for breaking the law.

(and by the way, I'm in the camp that we should have FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR fewer laws).

[wade moore]

Why? because I disagree with you? Because I BELIEVE that this cop was just being a royal prick and that I believe that due to my own experience with the police?

Where in this am *I* just trying to be an asshole? I'm just telling you what I think and feel on the matter. What am *I* doing that you think is just being prickish? seriously?



EDIT: just to add that I'm rather hurt that you think this. I'm hoping you're just trying to rile me up or something. I think I've been amazingly restrained in this discussion thus far.

Because you're doing what you always do. You come out with a TON of vitrol (sp?) about a subject all half-cocked without all of the facts. It's a consistent pattern that I've seen from you that drives me insane. You get all spun up and start insulting people (not necessarily people on this board, in this case this cop) with no real facts to support what you're saying.

If you were sitting here arguing the law is bad, there's a good chance i'd believe you. If you were argueing that this bumper sticker in court should not be upheld as obscene, I might agree with you. But you're argueing that this cop is an asshole and has a political motive to his job with NOTHING to back it up.

That infuriates me and points to why I say you are being an asshole about it.

[RendeR]

Freedom of speach is not a universal right. You don't need to look any further than netork television and how the FCC regulates it as an example. To repeat what Cukoo stated above, the law has to protect everyone. Person A has just as much right to leave the house and not be bombarded with profanity and vulgarity as person B has to speak whats on his mind.

If the cop was an idiot for writing that lady a ticket. The lady was an idiot for picking that sticker. There are about a billion anti-Bush stickers, T-shirts, and whatever out there that don't contain any sort of profanity. How come she didn't choose a different one?


This is the crux of my personal dislike for such things. I don't think society has the right to limit what is available for viewing. It is everyone's personal responsibility to deal with whats out there in the world, filter it to their own tastes and live their lives. If you're trying to protect children, start with the parents, its not society's place to tell my kids what is right and wrong, its mine, period.

I don't think person A HAS a right NOT to be bombarded. Its their own responsibility to deal with what is in the world. Not yours, mine or anyone elses to protect them.

[wade moore]

Where did I say whether or not I care whether or not he's being an "asshole." I don't care. I'm not a cop, so he's not one of my own. My point is simply that it's idiotic to complain about the fact that you were ticketed when you broke a law. Complain about the LAW, not the ticket. As I said earlier, if she's concerned about the ticket, there's a 100% fool-proof method to avoid getting that ticket: pick one of the thousands of anti-Bush bumper stickers that don't include profanity.


"When you call the tune, you have to pay the piper."
-Rowdy Roddy Piper



yup.

[Cringer]

I blame the cop because I believe he used his "knowledge" to persue his own agenda. If I'm wrong, awesome, I'm wrong and we have a real good guy out there.

I doubt I'm wrong.

I understand your point of view, because I agree for the most part. But I can't blame the cop just because of that.

Example: I also disagree with Illinois limiting the truck speed limit to 55 while cars may go 70. I think it is unsafe to have split speed limits. I, and most other trucks, break that law when driving in Illinois. I usually drive about 60-65 mph. The Highway Patrol has NEVER pulled me over doing this speed. In Illinois the Highway Patrol seem to agree with truckers on this, because they really don't seem to care as long as we are not hauling ass down the road. But if I were to get pulled over one day doing 60, as much as I think it shouldn't happen based on my feeling of the law and of what usually happens in that state, I would still have to admit I deserved the ticket and was in the wrong.

[wade moore]

Cringer adds the point I forgot to mention.

I have serious problems with people that get mad at cops for enforcing laws because they don't like the laws, whether they think there is motivation to it or not. I can't stand people passing the blame off of the ones actually responsible (the one breaking the law) onto the one doing their job (the cop).

[RendeR]

Ok, reading wade and SD's comments it appears that I'm giving the wrong impression here.

I'm not saying the lady shouldn't have been ticketed if that is what the law says, I'm saying she should fight it to the highest court because I think all such laws are WRONG.

I am saying that *I* believe the cop is just being an asshole based on my own experience that cops do not, for the most part, enforce such idiotic laws to begin with. I based this on a couple things,

A) this is the south and while I may be generalizing a bit, its a VERY pro-bush region and part of the bible belt where conservatives and the religios tend to feel they have a right to control what others say and do. (I've lived in the south, again this is personal experience)


B) Cops pick and choose what they enforce, they have to, its the nature of the job. The problem being when anyone gets to pick and choose what to enforce they end up letting personal preference color the decision. This is human nature. It takes an extraordinary person to be truly objective about anything.

C) people in power use and abuse that power. The old adage power corrupts and all that. I do not believe in human nature to be a positive thing. I think people will do what they want based on what they believe wether they have the right to place that on others or not.

So, you're right wade, I have no hard facts, I am making an assumption based on my personal life experience. Which I've stated ALL along the thread. I would LOVE to be proven wrong here, really. Show me the cops records that he tickets every damned piece of "lewd" text or imagery and I'll bow down and kiss your feet.

I've not stated anywhere in here that I'm basing my stance on facts, I'm basing it on experience and opinions are based on that. Nowhere did I ever contend that my stance was ANything but my opinion. Its my opinion, if you dislike it, stop reading! You have THAT right.

[wade moore]

I've not stated anywhere in here that I'm basing my stance on facts, I'm basing it on experience and opinions are based on that. Its my opinion, if you dislike it, stop reading! You have THAT right.

As I have the right to call out blatant BS, which your tirade on the cop is.

As I said, it taints your whole argument. If you would stop at "The law is bad, good for the woman to challenge it and take it to court!" I'd have no problem. It's where you turn it into a tirade on this cop that I have a problem.

[Ben E Lou]

A) this is the south and while I may be generalizing a bit, its a VERY pro-bush region and part of the bible belt where conservatives and the religios tend to feel they have a right to control what others say and do. (I've lived in the south, again this is personal experience)ROFLMBAO!!!!!! Yes, you are wayyyyyy over-generalizing.

This happened in DeKalb County. Left-leaning DeKalb County. Cynthia McKinney's district.

In 2000, Gore got 154,509 votes in DeKalb County, to Dubya's 58,807. In 2004, here were the results:

<table class="dataTable" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="710"> <tbody><tr class="topRow" align="center"><td class="dataTableRace" rowspan="3" align="left" valign="top">DeKalb
Updated: 5:35 p.m. ET
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.map.gif (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/GA/P/00/map.html)
</td><td> </td> <td align="left"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.dem.gif</td><td>Kerry (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/298/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>200,787</td> <td>73%</td><td rowspan="3">100% of precincts reporting</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.pro.winner.gif</td> <td align="left"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.rep.gif</td><td>Bush (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/20004/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))
(Incumbent)</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>73,570</td> <td>26%</td></tr><tr align="center"><td> </td> <td align="left"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.lib.gif</td><td>Badnarik (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/141687/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>1,782</td> <td>1%</td></tr></tbody> </table>

Your track record so far for making guesses without knowledge is showing to be pretty piss poor, now isn't it? :p

[Cringer]

Yaaaay Badnarik. 1% baby!! I voted for him. I don't think I helped raise the numbers for the Lib. party much though. :(

Ok, back to your regular programming.

[RendeR]

As I have the right to call out blatant BS, which your tirade on the cop is.



Can you prove me wrong? Can I prove myself Right?

No on both counts. So my tirade as you call it is my opinion on a situation. So you're "right" to call BS is just as much opinion and worth about as much in the argument. I don't see where you think you're on a higher ground here? Don't get pissed at me when your own argument against me is the same as what I'm using. Its just petty Wade. You dislike the fact that I'm against the cops actions based on my own opinion of the situation, so what? It doesn't make you any more right. So why am I an asshole when you're using the same argument with as much or less evidence?

[RendeR]

ROFLMBAO!!!!!! Yes, you are wayyyyyy over-generalizing.

This happened in DeKalb County. Left-leaning DeKalb County. Cynthia McKinney's district.

In 2000, Gore got 154,509 votes in DeKalb County, to Dubya's 58,807. In 2004, here were the results:

<table class="dataTable" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="710"> <tbody><tr class="topRow" align="center"><td class="dataTableRace" rowspan="3" align="left" valign="top">DeKalb
Updated: 5:35 p.m. ET
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.map.gif (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/GA/P/00/map.html)
</td><td> </td> <td align="left"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.dem.gif</td><td>Kerry (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:CNN_openPopup%28%27/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/298/frameset.exclude.html%27,%27620x430%27,%27toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430%27%29)</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>200,787</td> <td>73%</td><td rowspan="3">100% of precincts reporting</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.pro.winner.gif</td> <td align="left"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.rep.gif</td><td>Bush (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:CNN_openPopup%28%27/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/20004/frameset.exclude.html%27,%27620x430%27,%27toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430%27%29)
(Incumbent)</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>73,570</td> <td>26%</td></tr><tr align="center"><td> </td> <td align="left"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr><td>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.1/election/all.icons/icon.lib.gif</td><td>Badnarik (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:CNN_openPopup%28%27/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/US/P/00/141687/frameset.exclude.html%27,%27620x430%27,%27toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430%27%29)</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>1,782</td> <td>1%</td></tr></tbody> </table>

Your track record so far for making guesses without knowledge is showing to be pretty piss poor, now isn't it? :p

Well, imagine that, an intelligent district ;)

Yes I generalized, I said as much. My assumption was based on a statewide generalization (waits for the statistics proving me wrong that georgia is a red state...). I happily admit I am wrong about that county ;)

I'd actually take this as a bolster to my personal opinion that the cop was on his own agenda. but god forbid, I have an opinion ;P

[wade moore]

Can you prove me wrong? Can I prove myself Right?

No on both counts. So my tirade as you call it is my opinion on a situation. So you're "right" to call BS is just as much opinion and worth about as much in the argument. I don't see where you think you're on a higher ground here? Don't get pissed at me when your own argument against me is the same as what I'm using. Its just petty Wade. You dislike the fact that I'm against the cops actions based on my own opinion of the situation, so what? It doesn't make you any more right. So why am I an asshole when you're using the same argument with as much or less evidence?

Besides the fact of what SD just posted which pretty much proves most if not all of your premise wrong, i'll explain further...

I am not making an assertion about this cop either way. I'm saying there's not enough information.

My assertion is that you're acting like an asshole (or probably asshat would be more appropriate) in that you've gone on some tirade against this cop without knowing any of the facts behind anything but this one incident. Regardless of what the cop's background is, we don't know - therefore the tirade is an asshole-like action.

And again, I think SD's friendly little chart pretty much proves it.

[wade moore]

Well, imagine that, an intelligent district ;)

Yes I generalized, I said as much. My assumption was based on a statewide generalization. I happily admit I am wrong about that county ;)

I'd actually take this as a bolster to my personal opinion that the cop was on his own agenda. but god forbid, I have an opinion ;P

OMG.. you're actually going to try and argue that this makes you RIGHT?!

:rolleyes:

[Ben E Lou]

Well, imagine that, an intelligent district ;)Wrong again:

DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOLS
TOTAL SAT SCORES
SCHOOL 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Nation 1020 1020 1026 1026 1028
Georgia 980 980 984 987 993
DeKalb 933 915 928 923 922

Keep guessing....

[BrianD]

I don't think person A HAS a right NOT to be bombarded. Its their own responsibility to deal with what is in the world. Not yours, mine or anyone elses to protect them.

I would disagree with this statement. People have a right to speak their mind, but nobody should be forced to listen to them. This is why preacher what's-his-name from godhatesfags.com shouldn't be allowed to protest at soldiers' funerals, and this is why community standards laws exist.

[RendeR]

OMG.. you're actually going to try and argue that this makes you RIGHT?!

:rolleyes:

Wade, whatever your personal dislike of me is, get voer it or get out of the thread, please. I've stated CONSTANTLY through this thread that this is MY OPINION, based on MY EXPERIENCE IN LIFE.

I don't have any more facts that you do about this particular cop or situation. I am not CLAIMING TO. I am stating what I believe to be the situation based on MY LIFE.

Why the hell can't you get that? It doesn't make me wrong, it doesn't make me right.

You sure as hell aren't right either. You seem to think you have some moral high ground here, why? You got nothing.

if you don;t like what I say, stop reading it. It will save you a lot of wasted breath.


As for your comment above, you OBVIOUSLY don't get sarcasm. Go take a nap. yer a crabby ass today.

[wade moore]

Wade, whatever your personal dislike of me is, get voer it or get out of the thread, please. I've stated CONSTANTLY through this thread that this is MY OPINION, based on MY EXPERIENCE IN LIFE.

I don't have any more facts that you do about this particular cop or situation. I am not CLAIMING TO. I am stating what I believe to be the situation based on MY LIFE.

Why the hell can't you get that? It doesn't make me wrong, it doesn't make me right.

You sure as hell aren't right either. You seem to think you have some moral high ground here, why? You got nothing.

if you don;t like what I say, stop reading it. It will save you a lot of wasted breath.


As for your comment above, you OBVIOUSLY don't get sarcasm. Go take a nap. yer a crabby ass today.

I love when people try to take the whole, "it's my opinion so it can't be wrong" stance.


As for the crab ass comment, I find it to be VERY ironic.

[RendeR]

I would disagree with this statement. People have a right to speak their mind, but nobody should be forced to listen to them. This is why preacher what's-his-name from godhatesfags.com shouldn't be allowed to protest at soldiers' funerals, and this is why community standards laws exist.


See this is where it gets into that grey area. I agree with protecting people from being harrassed, thats what those protests were, harrassment. I don't believe that a bumper sticker is harrassment. There is a blurry line there that I don't have a quality answer for at this time as to what should be protected and what shouldn't. You make a choice to read a bumper sticker. Those folks at that funeral didn't have a choice but to hear that protesters....so that doesn't really compare.

[RendeR]

I love when people try to take the whole, "it's my opinion so it can't be wrong" stance.


As for the crab ass comment, I find it to be VERY ironic.


DUE....I have stated REPEATEDLY that I would LOVE TO BE WRONG...good LORd man have you actually read anything I've typed???

LOL

I don't see whats ironic, I'm in a fantastic mood. If you are reading anger into my posts, you're wrong...imagine that.

[BrianD]

See this is where it gets into that grey area. I agree with protecting people from being harrassed, thats what those protests were, harrassment. I don't believe that a bumper sticker is harrassment. There is a blurry line there that I don't have a quality answer for at this time as to what should be protected and what shouldn't. You make a choice to read a bumper sticker. Those folks at that funeral didn't have a choice but to hear that protesters....so that doesn't really compare.

Sure it compares. It is two different points on the same spectrum. One bumper sticker isn't harrassing, but a hundred, or a thousand might be. If no law prevents these, they may be all over. That is what you have to decide if you support.

As far as not having to read a bumper sticker, that is crap. Bumper stickers are all over. Are you really going to be able to teach your kids to not read any bumper stickers? If you are riding in a car and see another car in front of you, it is almost impossible not to read them.

[John Galt]

This thread is going nowhere fast, but I thought I'd at least add a little perspective on the constitutionality of the law. If this law is challenged in court for being an infringement on free speech, I have very little doubt it will be struck down (unless a local Roy Moore type decides to ignore all existing precedent on the issue). See Cohen v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=15) (aka, the "Fuck the Draft" case).

[wade moore]

DUE....I have stated REPEATEDLY that I would LOVE TO BE WRONG...good LORd man have you actually read anything I've typed???

LOL

I don't see whats ironic, I'm in a fantastic mood. If you are reading anger into my posts, you're wrong...imagine that.

Saying you'd "love to be wrong," does not magically excuse the comments you are making.

That being said, this is going to be my last response on this part of this thread, because I have the same thought as you "have you been actually reading anything I've typed", so obviously we're not getting through to each other.

[wade moore]

On the original subject of this thread...

I am very torn with things like this. In general, I think that people need to get thicker skinned and learn to ignore things.

For instance, I find the censoring of radio and TV at times to be absurd, because as long as you know what is coming (I'm in favor of ratings, etc. for sure), then you can avoid if you don't want to see/hear it, or shelter your children from it.

However when it comes to things out in public display, this becomes a lot harder. Should you be able to show graphic pornography on a billboard? Be allowed to have sex in the streets? Have a statue of a graphic maiming in your front lawn? All of these things have something in common - they're difficult to avoid, and even more so if they are moving (such as on a car or a truck or one of those roaming billboards).

So. Should these things that cannot be "avoided" be censored? If so, how much?

I tend to feel like showing a graphic depiction of an orgy on a roaming billboard is bad. A license plate with a curse word in it? meh, seems relatively harmless. The problem is, how do you legislate between the two?

[gstelmack]

A) this is the south and while I may be generalizing a bit, its a VERY pro-bush region and part of the bible belt where conservatives and the religios tend to feel they have a right to control what others say and do. (I've lived in the south, again this is personal experience)

I would also say that since it's the south, you won't find a whole lot of "bad words on bumper stickers" for him to ticket. Depending on the community, he may simply have not had sufficient opportunity to enforce this law.

The one thing that would shoot my whole argument down is they consider the "Calvin peeing" stickers lewd and in violation of this law. If so, then he's had plenty of opportunities, because those things are all over the place, especially in the Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge truck wars :D

[Cuckoo]

This thread is going nowhere fast, but I thought I'd at least add a little perspective on the constitutionality of the law. If this law is challenged in court for being an infringement on free speech, I have very little doubt it will be struck down (unless a local Roy Moore type decides to ignore all existing precedent on the issue). See Cohen v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=15) (aka, the "Fuck the Draft" case).

Fascinating. Thanks for the link, John. I read the opinion, and (not surprisingly) I disagree with it. I find it interesting, though, that the opinion repeatedly mentions whether the utterance incited any kind of violence. In this case it did not, but the contention seems to be that the state can regulate speech if it does in fact incite some violent reaction. That seems strange to me.

I'm a little more in the camp of the dissenting opinion, I think, in that it was more "conduct" than "speech" in that case.

Very interesting stuff. I agree with wade moore that these are difficult questions as I am nearly always in the "quit bitching" and "grow thicker skin" camp on these kinds of issues. I would think (as wade's examples show) the line would likely need to be drawn somewhere. :)

[Shepp]

This is the crux of my personal dislike for such things. I don't think society has the right to limit what is available for viewing. It is everyone's personal responsibility to deal with whats out there in the world, filter it to their own tastes and live their lives. If you're trying to protect children, start with the parents, its not society's place to tell my kids what is right and wrong, its mine, period.

I don't think person A HAS a right NOT to be bombarded. Its their own responsibility to deal with what is in the world. Not yours, mine or anyone elses to protect them.

How do you "filter" what you see or hear when you're in public? What you're advocating is that when I leave the house, someone else can say, show, or do anything they like to me because of their freedom of speach/expression and its just up to me to deal with it?

To take this one step further. If my response to what you're saying or doing to me is to punch you in the face; does the government have the right to punish me for expressing myself?

[Cuckoo]

If my response to what you're saying or doing to me is to punch you in the face; does the government have the right to punish me for expressing myself?

Yes, absolutely. But if what I'm reading from the opinion that John posted is correct (and I'm certainly not an attorney or constitutional scholar), punching him in the face would then automatically make his words illegal as well. If you don't punch him, then he's all good.

Again, I'm not sure if I'm reading that correctly, but that just seems a little off to me.

[John Galt]

Fascinating. Thanks for the link, John. I read the opinion, and (not surprisingly) I disagree with it. I find it interesting, though, that the opinion repeatedly mentions whether the utterance incited any kind of violence. In this case it did not, but the contention seems to be that the state can regulate speech if it does in fact incite some violent reaction. That seems strange to me.

I'm a little more in the camp of the dissenting opinion, I think, in that it was more "conduct" than "speech" in that case.

Very interesting stuff. I agree with wade moore that these are difficult questions as I am nearly always in the "quit bitching" and "grow thicker skin" camp on these kinds of issues. I would think (as wade's examples show) the line would likely need to be drawn somewhere. :)

The so-called "fighting words" exception does not allow regulation of speech that actually causes violence. That is, just because violence results is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for falling into the "fighting words" category. It is a pretty narrow exception to the first amendment, but includes a wide array of conduct. If I say I'm going to kick your ass and move toward you in a threatening manner, that as an assault under state criminal law. A defendant cannot argue a first amendemtn challenge to the assault law because his actions either were 1) "fighting words" or 2) conduct (and not speech). In some cases, racial epitaths and baiting can be so severe and at a bad time (i.e. in front of a white hooded mob surrounding a solo black man) that the speech can be regulated.

Generally, though, regulating political speech because of the use of swear words is a definite no-no. And the legislature should have known that.

[Cuckoo]

Generally, though, regulating political speech because of the use of swear words is a definite no-no. And the legislature should have known that.

See, my humble opinion would be that using swear words in that scenario is done for the express purpose of inciting reaction. Otherwise, the person could simply make their political point. The court's opinion states that using a swear word is done to indicate some strength of opinion or particular emotional feeling about the speech. While I don't doubt that, the fact that it will incite reaction (possibly even violent) seems to be common sense to me, and the person placing the bumper sticker on their car/wearing the jacket should have known that.

[RendeR]

Wrong again:

DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOLS
TOTAL SAT SCORES
SCHOOL 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Nation 1020 1020 1026 1026 1028
Georgia 980 980 984 987 993
DeKalb 933 915 928 923 922

Keep guessing....

missed this one before... 900's are not bad. If they were in the 700's I might wonder, but 900's are still good!

[RendeR]

How do you "filter" what you see or hear when you're in public? What you're advocating is that when I leave the house, someone else can say, show, or do anything they like to me because of their freedom of speach/expression and its just up to me to deal with it?

To take this one step further. If my response to what you're saying or doing to me is to punch you in the face; does the government have the right to punish me for expressing myself?


The very basis of our "freedom" is the right to stand there and profess at the top of my voice that which you despise, and your right to respond in kind.

As soon as you violate my right to do so, physically, you should be sanctioned. my words cannot injure you physically, your fist can.

[GrantDawg]

I would disagree with this statement. People have a right to speak their mind, but nobody should be forced to listen to them. This is why preacher what's-his-name from godhatesfags.com shouldn't be allowed to protest at soldiers' funerals, and this is why community standards laws exist.


Yup. BTW, this law has been in affect for many years, and the police do regularly enforce it. Not just because of political statements either.

[John Galt]

See, my humble opinion would be that using swear words in that scenario is done for the express purpose of inciting reaction. Otherwise, the person could simply make their political point. The court's opinion states that using a swear word is done to indicate some strength of opinion or particular emotional feeling about the speech. While I don't doubt that, the fact that it will incite reaction (possibly even violent) seems to be common sense to me, and the person placing the bumper sticker on their car/wearing the jacket should have known that.

I think the Framer's and the Justices of the Supreme Court have long recognized that a healthy, vigorous free speech doctrine requires letting people offend and provoke each other. It seems odd to me that saying "Bushshit" will "incite reaction" and should be regulated, but the Mohammed cartoons should be allowed. It also seems strange to me that making fun of Bush personally provokes or offends anyone other than Bush.

As for being able to make the point without swear words - I think politeness and eloquence are not necessary elements of political speech.

[clintl]

Based on that Supreme Court ruling, they may not be enforcing it much longer if she fights it.

[RendeR]

I would also say that since it's the south, you won't find a whole lot of "bad words on bumper stickers" for him to ticket. Depending on the community, he may simply have not had sufficient opportunity to enforce this law.

The one thing that would shoot my whole argument down is they consider the "Calvin peeing" stickers lewd and in violation of this law. If so, then he's had plenty of opportunities, because those things are all over the place, especially in the Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge truck wars :D

See , this is why I draw the opinion I have. There are going to be so many things that, by their law, he should be ticketing. I make the assumption that he does not normally, so there must be a reason other than the law for his action. I may well be wrong, but until proven so, I'll stick with my opinion as is.

[GrantDawg]

I think the Framer's and the Justices of the Supreme Court have long recognized that a healthy, vigorous free speech doctrine requires letting people offend and provoke each other. It seems odd to me that saying "Bushshit" will "incite reaction" and should be regulated, but the Mohammed cartoons should be allowed. It also seems strange to me that making fun of Bush personally provokes or offends anyone other than Bush.

As for being able to make the point without swear words - I think politeness and eloquence are not necessary elements of political speech.

But this law has stood because of "community standards." It has never fought on the basis of political speech (like I said, this was an anti-"____ happens" bumper sticker law), but it has won out in the past in other cases. Are you seriously saying communities can't outlaw flashing billboards that say "F___ You!" as long as they say "F____ You, Bush!"?

[Cuckoo]

I think the Framer's and the Justices of the Supreme Court have long recognized that a healthy, vigorous free speech doctrine requires letting people offend and provoke each other. It seems odd to me that saying "Bushshit" will "incite reaction" and should be regulated, but the Mohammed cartoons should be allowed.

Well, there are probably two things involved in that distinction - 1. Whether it's in the public realm and 2. Whether "artistic merit" is involved. Again, I'm no legal scholar, so I can't really speak to the differences, but it seems clear to me they exist.

It also seems strange to me that making fun of Bush personally provokes or offends anyone other than Bush.

Agreed completely. But to deny that the condition exists doesn't really help matters.

As for being able to make the point without swear words - I think politeness and eloquence are not necessary elements of political speech.

Right. But should the former be a necessary element for public, political speech? I guess that's where we would disagree.

[RendeR]

Yup. BTW, this law has been in affect for many years, and the police do regularly enforce it. Not just because of political statements either.

Again, you have no evidence of this any more than I have for my belief. Its a more police freindly opinion, but its just an opinion, same as mine.

[GrantDawg]

Again, you have no evidence of this any more than I have for my belief. Its a more police freindly opinion, but its just an opinion, same as mine.


Yes, I do. People with bumper stickers that have had the offensive words cut out because they were ticketed. People that I personally know being pulled over and ticketed. I live in this state, and I know these laws are enforced.

[RendeR]

Yes, I do. People with bumper stickers that have had the offensive words cut out because they were ticketed. People that I personally know being pulled over and ticketed. I live in this state, and I know these laws are enforced.

well then in your area I stand corrected. Glad to see some consistancy from a police force.

Are you in Dekalb as well or another area of the state?

[GrantDawg]

well then in your area I stand corrected. Glad to see some consistancy from a police force.

Are you in Dekalb as well or another area of the state?


Two counties over. Not even 15 miles from Dekalb.

[Ben E Lou]

missed this one before... 900's are not bad. If they were in the 700's I might wonder, but 900's are still good!1. 900's are horrible for an average, particularly since they recalibrated the scores. Georgia is consistently in the bottom 2 or 3 states in SAT scores, and you're saying 60-70 points below THAT is "still good?" :confused:

Oh, and if you're looking for the 700's, you don't want to see the election results for the Georgia counties with average SAT's in the 700's. Trust me.

[RendeR]

1. 900's are horrible for an average, particularly since they recalibrated the scores. Georgia is consistently in the bottom 2 or 3 states in SAT scores, and you're saying 60-70 points below THAT is "still good?" :confused:

Oh, and if you're looking for the 700's, you don't want to see the election results for the Georgia counties with average SAT's in the 700's. Trust me.


*laughs* man relax...sheesh, would you call one of your kids that scored 950 on the SAT stupid? I'd hope not, they are still intelligent people. splitting hairs over 100 points on an SAT test is rather silly. yes 900's leave room for improvement sure. but its far from a bad or stpuity level score.

[RendeR]

Two counties over. Not even 15 miles from Dekalb.

Wierd...I grew up in northern PA, th counties are huge, seems strange to me that you're 2 counties away and its such a short distance.

I hope I'm wrong across the board and that the cop in question was being consistant too. I'm just entirely too jaded to believe it.

[CamEdwards]

yes 900's leave room for improvement sure. but its far from a bad or stpuity level score.

Okay, that made me laugh.

[CamEdwards]

I hope I'm wrong across the board and that the cop in question was being consistant too. I'm just to full of myself to believe it.

Dola: Fixed that for ya.

[RendeR]

Okay, that made me laugh.


:D;):D;):D

[RendeR]

Dola: Fixed that for ya.

that was rude and uncalled for. I was being very honest in that post.

[Subby]

It's funny to watch RendeR get pwn3d left and right. :D

[clintl]

Apparently, this is all William the Conqueror's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit) fault.

[RendeR]

It's funny to watch RendeR get pwn3d left and right. :D

Not sure why yer entertained then. I've been insulted and attacked left and right, but nothing much else has changed. Its not like I ever stated any facts in the thread. I posted opinion, speculation and assumption for why I have said opinion, and I've happily admitted change of such when sufficient facts have been given.

Where did I get...whatever that is you wrote? You know what...don't worry about it. Your input into this thread has already enlightened millions I'm sure.

[John Galt]

But this law has stood because of "community standards." It has never fought on the basis of political speech (like I said, this was an anti-"____ happens" bumper sticker law), but it has won out in the past in other cases. Are you seriously saying communities can't outlaw flashing billboards that say "F___ You!" as long as they say "F____ You, Bush!"?

"Community Standards" is part of the test applied for obscene speech. "Bushshit" isn't obscene under any existing case law. Obscenity is most often applied in the case of extreme pornography. Words alone are not generally obscene (I can't think of a single instance where words alone have been held to be obscene, but I could be wrong).

One other distinction that should be noted is the way laws are challenged. You can challenge a statute as 1) facially unconstitutional or 2) unconstitutional as applied. A facial challenge argues that the statute, standing by text alone is unconstitutional. An as applied challenge would generally say the law is being enforced unconstitutionally. An easy example would be a law that said no people are allowed in the courthouse, but the law is only applied to women.

I'd have to see the law in this case to see if was facially unconstitutional. There are a LOT of legal doctrines at play here. If the law applied only to bumper stickers, there is an equal protection issue since a fundamental liberty (free speech) is involved. If, for example, billboards were unregulated, then the bumper sticker regulation could be struck down on equal protection grounds. How the statute is written can change things to. If it covers "communication on the roadways" (my made up example), then it would also cover music or people shouting from the cars.

Generally, though, there is nothing about the word "shit" that is obscene or a fighting word. That means the government has to argue some sort of time/place/manner restriction. However, that's when the equal protection issues come in (and I'm guessing the government will lose those, but I'd have to see a bunch of similar statutes to know). Also, a time/place/manner restriction does not to preclude an as-applied challenge. And given the specific nature of this bumper sticker, the government would have a VERY tough argument to make. They would have to show more than that they have enforced the law in other cases. Exactly what they would have to show, though, depends on the specific statute.

[flere-imsaho]

If she wants to challenge that the law shouldn't exist at ALL, then that's another matter entirely, but to bitch about the cop writing a ticket for this is just plain stupid.

Uh, isn't this exactly what she is doing? Having been appraised of a law with which she does not agree, and being ticketed for it, she's going to force it to be reviewed by the Judicial branch.

I guess I'm just surprised the legal challenge hasn't come sooner.

[John Galt]

Well, there are probably two things involved in that distinction - 1. Whether it's in the public realm and 2. Whether "artistic merit" is involved. Again, I'm no legal scholar, so I can't really speak to the differences, but it seems clear to me they exist.



Agreed completely. But to deny that the condition exists doesn't really help matters.



Right. But should the former be a necessary element for public, political speech? I guess that's where we would disagree.

Artistic merit is also part of the obscenity test and I don't believe it applies in fighting words cases.

I would add one other thing. What is polite and proper political discourse? In the early republic, I would say impolite political speech was more common than it is today. The constitution doesn't say "freedom of polite speech" - it says "freedom of speech."

[John Galt]

Uh, isn't this exactly what she is doing? Having been appraised of a law with which she does not agree, and being ticketed for it, she's going to force it to be reviewed by the Judicial branch.

I guess I'm just surprised the legal challenge hasn't come sooner.

To add to flere's point, SD's solution makes sense in an abstract world, but not under our legal system. You can't have standing to challenge a law like this unless you have been ticketed under it.

My guess is to why it hasn't been challenged before is money and media. It's too costly for someone to contest it for a small ticket. And no one takes it pro bono until it gets media attention. I'm guessing this will trigger a suit on behalf of the woman funded by some civil liberties organization (possibly, but not necessarily the ACLU).

[Subby]

Not sure why yer entertained then. I've been insulted and attacked left and right, but nothing much else has changed. Its not like I ever stated any facts in the thread. I posted opinion, speculation and assumption for why I have said opinion, and I've happily admitted change of such when sufficient facts have been given.

Where did I get...whatever that is you wrote? You know what...don't worry about it. Your input into this thread has already enlightened millions I'm sure.
You are weird.

[John Galt]

Even worse, I now see that the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled on a similar statute and held it unconstitutional. Cunningham v. State, 400 S.E.2d 916 (1991). In that case, the Georgia court held that Cohen v. California applied and struck down a statute that prohibited "any sticker, decal, emblem, or other device [on a car] containing profane or lewd words describing sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body." The bumper sticker in that case was the "Shit Happens" sticker. So, the Georgia legislature has no leg to stand on here.

[GrantDawg]

Actually, I'm going to eat words. This law has already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court according to this: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=bumper_stickers

They are still enforcing the law, so they might be either doing so illegally (wouldn't surprise me of the local authorities), or another law has been passed and has yet to be challenged. I would say John is right that she will win the case.

[GrantDawg]

Even worse, I now see that the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled on a similar statute and held it unconstitutional. Cunningham v. State, 400 S.E.2d 916 (1991). In that case, the Georgia court held that Cohen v. California applied and struck down a statute that prohibited "any sticker, decal, emblem, or other device [on a car] containing profane or lewd words describing sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body." The bumper sticker in that case was the "Shit Happens" sticker. So, the Georgia legislature has no leg to stand on here.


Beat me by a minute.

[flere-imsaho]

Cue "legislating from the bench" complaints in 3... 2... 1...

[GrantDawg]

I changed the title to reflect new information.

[Daimyo]

Actually, I'm going to eat words. This law has already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court according to this: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=bumper_stickers

They are still enforcing the law, so they might be either doing so illegally (wouldn't surprise me of the local authorities), or another law has been passed and has yet to be challenged. I would say John is right that she will win the case.
So by "people are morons" in the thread title you were refering to the policeman who illegally ticketed the woman? :)

[GrantDawg]

So by "people are morons" in the thread title you were refering to the policeman who illegally ticketed the woman? :)


No, and I really still think she's a moron. A person that uses profanity in front of children is always a moron in my book. I'm not much for profanity in front of adults either. :)

[wade moore]

So by "people are morons" in the thread title you were refering to the policeman who illegally ticketed the woman? :)

Just a sec.

Are we sure there are no laws on the books? It sounds to me like a law was struck down, but not necessarily all-laws involving this stuff?

[CamEdwards]

So by "people are morons" in the thread title you were refering to the policeman who illegally ticketed the woman? :)

Nah, she's still a moron. Anyone with more than three political bumper stickers on their car usually qualifies.

[Ben E Lou]

Anyone with more than three political bumper stickers on their car usually qualifies.Word.

[RendeR]

You are weird.

Perhaps, but can you prove it?

[Daimyo]

Nah, she's still a moron. Anyone with more than three political bumper stickers on their car usually qualifies.
I'll see your three political bumper stickers and raise you to one political bumper sticker.

[BrianD]

Speaking of too many bumper stickers, I saw a car this weekend with about 100 religious bumper stickers. They were all over every side of the car. A bit creepy, I thought.

[Airhog]

I dont see an expletitive on the bumper sticker. I could see it being an issue if it was I'm tired of all the fucking bush" or something

[Drake]

So the point of all of this is that we should allow profanity on bumper stickers because each of us can decide what we want to see, but we should ban Xmas trees, nativity scenes and menorahs because they might offend some people.

Okay.

[st.cronin]

I really have never understood how profanity/pornography was a free speech issue, or more of a free speech issue than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. I thought the point of free speech was to enable opposing points of view.

[DaddyTorgo]

bushit is obscene? does that mean molass(as) is as well? since it has the word ass in it? god how ASsine! (yeah that's misspelled, for effect)

stupid laws!!!

[Daimyo]

So the point of all of this is that we should allow profanity on bumper stickers because each of us can decide what we want to see, but we should ban Xmas trees, nativity scenes and menorahs because they might offend some people.

Okay.
Has there ever been any movement in this country to ban people displaying xmas tress or any of those things on their private property?

[Cringer]

So the point of all of this is that we should allow profanity on bumper stickers because each of us can decide what we want to see, but we should ban Xmas trees, nativity scenes and menorahs because they might offend some people.

Okay.

Yes. See, I can control what I read by taking out my contacts (or taking off my glasses). But that doesn't work with Christmas trees, because even though they are blury I still see the lights. :)

[stevew]

How about those people with all the tacky magnet ribbons on their car. You want to throw one up there for the troops, okay. Maybe you want to throw one up there for Breast Cancer aWareness. Okay. Maybe some other social cause, that's cool But some people have 4-5 of these things on their car, friggin overkill is all I'm sayin.

[st.cronin]

How about those people with all the tacky magnet ribbons on their car. You want to throw one up there for the troops, okay. Maybe you want to throw one up there for Breast Cancer aWareness. Okay. Maybe some other social cause, that's cool But some people have 4-5 of these things on their car, friggin overkill is all I'm sayin.

And then there are the people that STEAL them. Let me catch you, just one time.

[stevew]

I appreciate the fact that the fanbase are diehards. But c'mon, a meaningful NFL game is months away, no need for 15 steelers bumper stickers and 2 flags on the pickup at this point.

[Drake]

Has there ever been any movement in this country to ban people displaying xmas tress or any of those things on their private property?

Not to my knowledge. My point is that I think people being offended by a town's nativity display on the courthouse lawn is stupid. Almost as silly as being offended by someone's bumper sticker.

[Glengoyne]

The whole concept of "bad words" is completely silly in the first place. All it does is give certain words a power they wouldn't otherwise have.

fuck that

[Glengoyne]

Nah, she's still a moron. Anyone with more than three political bumper stickers on their car usually qualifies.

You set the bar too high.

[Telle]

Not to my knowledge. My point is that I think people being offended by a town's nativity display on the courthouse lawn is stupid. Almost as silly as being offended by someone's bumper sticker.

The issue is that some people are offended. The issue is that it's a government endorsement of a particular religious faith. If someone's offended by it, that's really irrelavent.

[Drake]

The issue is that some people are offended. The issue is that it's a government endorsement of a particular religious faith. If someone's offended by it, that's really irrelavent.

Yeah, whatever. I tend to see this as the same issue playing out differently.

[Telle]

Yeah, whatever. I tend to see this as the same issue playing out differently.

Well except for the little fact that there's no constitutional protection against being offended. I think in practice people and the media play up the whole "offended" thing.. but really, nobody has a right to not be offended.

[Drake]

I'd agree with you. That's why I think the holiday displays are a-ok.

[RendeR]

The holiday displays are not ok, because they equate to your local government endorsing that religius display and hence, that religion, which is illegal.

[cuervo72]

From a parenting perspective, the thing I see with this is what if you don't catch when the kids might be reading this? My son was invited to a birthday party at a bowling alley, and had to go to the bathroom. So I take him in, and we go into one of the stalls (yes, he of course had to go #2). He's at the point where he is beginning to be able to read things around him (he just turned 6), and is reading whatever he can. So he of course looks at the stall door, and sure enough, he starts to spell...."F-U-C-K...Daddy, what is 'fuck'?". "Errmmmm....ok, son, that's a word that we don't want you to use because many consider it to be vulgar [and if I used that word, I had to then define vulgar] and will get you in trouble if you say it to anyone. So don't say it."

Now this is all fine and dandy when I'm there to witness him picking this word up. Not quite as good if he reads one somewhere without me knowing it, and then decides to try it out say, in school sometime.

[Drake]

The holiday displays are not ok, because they equate to your local government endorsing that religius display and hence, that religion, which is illegal.

Not okay with you (and by concensus, apparently not okay with a bunch of people, constitutional lawyers included).

Okay with me, because I think calling it a defacto endorsement of religion always was and always will be a stupid argument. I'm not gonna kill anybody over it. I just see it as the same thing profanity on a bumper sticker.

In other words, folks who don't like it should grow a thicker skin.

[Karlifornia]

Thank heavens for this cop, without him, who knows what kind of vile bumper stickers these yayhoos would have on their cars! Thank you, police, for making this country safe for innocent eyes!

*wavs mini american flag in one hand, holds a sparkler in the other*

[digamma]

I thought of this thread today when my paralegal told me that her license plate application for a vanity plate that reads "BSH LIED" was turned down pursuant to the following provision:

"The department may cancel and order the return of any environmental license plate heretofore or hereafter issued, containing any combination of letters, or numbers, or both, which the department determines carries connotations offensive to good taste and decency or which would be misleading. Whenever the department orders any person to return any such environmental license plate containing any combination of letters or numbers, or both, which the department determines carries connotations offensive to good taste and decency or which would be misleading, the person so ordered may, in writing and within 10 days after receiving the order, demand a hearing, which shall be granted. The provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500), Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code, shall apply to hearings provided for in this subdivision. Any person ordered to return such plates shall either be reimbursed for any additional fees he paid for the plates pursuant to Section 5106 or 5108 for the registration year in which they are recalled, or be given, at no additional cost therefor, replacement environmental license plates, the issuance of which is in compliance with this code."

Of course, I told her it was going to be rejected when she applied for it, but what do I know.

[Grammaticus]

This thread is going nowhere fast, but I thought I'd at least add a little perspective on the constitutionality of the law. If this law is challenged in court for being an infringement on free speech, I have very little doubt it will be struck down (unless a local Roy Moore type decides to ignore all existing precedent on the issue). See Cohen v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=15) (aka, the "Fuck the Draft" case).
Uh, that is California case law. In the great state of Georgia, California case law is not even good enough to use as toilet paper. Sorry, but this just does not help things at all.

[John Galt]

Uh, that is California case law. In the great state of Georgia, California case law is not even good enough to use as toilet paper. Sorry, but this just does not help things at all.

Strange reply after so long, but thread necromancy can have that effect. Either way, that is a United States Supreme Court case, not a California court case. If you actually click on the link, you might notice it begins with the words "U.S. Supreme Court." Confusing, I know. And you also might have noticed that I also mentioned a case that was actually from the Georgia Supreme Court, Cunningham v. State, 400 S.E.2d 916 (1991), where they applied the U.S. Supreme Court case Cohen v. California, and struck down a similar statute.

[RendeR]

Strange reply after so long, but thread necromancy can have that effect. Either way, that is a United States Supreme Court case, not a California court case. If you actually click on the link, you might notice it begins with the words "U.S. Supreme Court." Confusing, I know. And you also might have noticed that I also metioned a case that was actually from the Georgia Supreme Court, Cunningham v. State, 400 S.E.2d 916 (1991), where they applied the U.S. Supreme Court case Cohen v. California, and struck down a similar statute.


Its ok John, he was just exercising his right NOT to read something ;)

this thread is a hysterical read after so many months.

[yabanci]

Chalk another one up for free speech. Dedicated to all the people who attacked RendeR and others for saying the law was unconstitutional.

Bumper Sticker Case Gets the Boot

Georgia Motorist in Trouble for Rude Sticker

DECATUR, Ga. (AP) - Georgia nurse Denise Grier is off the legal hook for an obscene bumper sticker critical of President Bush.

The sticker added the letters "I-T" to the president's name. It read, in effect: I'm Tired Of All The BUSH-bleep.

“With the performance of Bush, I feel like, you know, he's not done what he was elected to do. I don't feel like he's telling us the truth, and those are my personal feelings," Grier said.

Until this past June, it was the only bumper sticker Grier had on her car. On March 10, she was pulled over by a DeKalb police officer.

“He said, ‘do you know why I stopped you?’ And I said, ‘no I have no idea.’ And he said, ‘you have a lewd decal on your car.’ And I said, ‘I do?’ My first thought was one of my children had put something obscene or filthy on my car,” said Grier.

The officer said the offending bumper sticker violated a law against lewd, obscene and vulgar vehicle decals.

Grier was given a 100-dollar ticket for violating a state law prohibiting lewd or profane stickers.

Grier contested the fine, saying the bumper
sticker was simply a political statement.

A DeKalb County judge has dismissed the case, saying the sticker law has already been
declared unconstitutional.

http://www.wltx.com/fyi/fyi.aspx?storyid=36484

[Grammaticus]

Strange reply after so long, but thread necromancy can have that effect. Either way, that is a United States Supreme Court case, not a California court case. If you actually click on the link, you might notice it begins with the words "U.S. Supreme Court." Confusing, I know. And you also might have noticed that I also mentioned a case that was actually from the Georgia Supreme Court, Cunningham v. State, 400 S.E.2d 916 (1991), where they applied the U.S. Supreme Court case Cohen v. California, and struck down a similar statute.
I didn't read that crap, putting California in the title was enough to ward me off.

Can't anyone just be a smart ass every now and then:D

[RendeR]

I didn't read that crap, putting California in the title was enough to ward me off.

Can't anyone just be a smart ass every now and then:D


Oh Definitely, but your smart ass remark had best be backed up with case files and hard physical evidence, otherwise you're just being a prick ;)

[Celeval]

Hrm. Maybe it's an odd mood I'm in, but do bumper stickers fall into any sort of a different category because you don't know what you're reading until you've read it? I mean, it's not like a novel that you can choose not to read, or a movie you can choose not to see. Not that I think bushit is offensive personally, but more a general question.

Where does this fall in relation to can-people-play-pr0n-on-in-car-DVD-players-without-tinted-windows cases?

[MrBigglesworth]

Hrm. Maybe it's an odd mood I'm in, but do bumper stickers fall into any sort of a different category because you don't know what you're reading until you've read it? I mean, it's not like a novel that you can choose not to read, or a movie you can choose not to see. Not that I think bushit is offensive personally, but more a general question.

Where does this fall in relation to can-people-play-pr0n-on-in-car-DVD-players-without-tinted-windows cases?
That's like saying that speech should be regulated because you don't know what someone will say until they say it.

Good for this woman, she fought the law, and she won.

[Dutch]

That's like saying that speech should be regulated because you don't know what someone will say until they say it.

Good for this woman, she fought the law, and she won.

And she should of won, but I applaud the officer's efforts anyway. :)

[WVUFAN]

Sure, cops pick and choose which "minor" laws they're going to enforce. So, you want to avoid getting a ticket for a "minor" law? Here's a 100% fool-proff way: DON'T BREAK THE MINOR LAWS. Don't break one, and then bitch that you got caught. Was she in violation of the law? Yes. End of discussion on that matter.

If she wants to challenge that the law shouldn't exist at ALL, then that's another matter entirely, but to bitch about the cop writing a ticket for this is just plain stupid.

Given the location of the ticket-writing (doesn't say where on Chamblee-Tucker Rd., but this could have been as close as a half mile from my house), I wonder if this was one of the cops I know.

There's two things at work here: one, is the establish that the law is being enforced equally. Not the blame the cop, but if he is not pulling over EVERY SINGLE PERSON that has a bumber sticker that has "bad words" on it, he's wrong, plain and simple.

Secondly, the law is wrong, and probably unconstitutional. Someone asked earlier if communities can make their own standards for what is "bad words". My answer is: absolutely NOT. As has been said on the board before, free speech protects not the speech that everyone approves of, but he speech NO ONE approves of. When a group or a community begins the slope of banning "indecent" words, and regulating the way in which someone says something, it flies in the face of the whole purpose to that amendment.

My feeling on the matter is that the cop didn't like the bumper sticker, and used this little-enforced rule to be a dick about it. If that's the case, he lose the case, and probably shouldn't be a cop anymore.

I can't beleive I'm agreeing with RendeR on this. Must be a wierd day.

[WVUFAN]

cool. She won the case. I should probably read further down the thread before commenting. :-)

[stevew]

I thought of this thread today when my paralegal told me that her license plate application for a vanity plate that reads "BSH LIED" was turned down pursuant to the following provision:



Of course, I told her it was going to be rejected when she applied for it, but what do I know.
I'm sure she thought that she was witty, I wonder how many people asked for that plate before she did. I'm guessing quite a few.

[Grammaticus]

There's two things at work here: one, is the establish that the law is being enforced equally. Not the blame the cop, but if he is not pulling over EVERY SINGLE PERSON that has a bumber sticker that has "bad words" on it, he's wrong, plain and simple.

Secondly, the law is wrong, and probably unconstitutional. Someone asked earlier if communities can make their own standards for what is "bad words". My answer is: absolutely NOT. As has been said on the board before, free speech protects not the speech that everyone approves of, but he speech NO ONE approves of. When a group or a community begins the slope of banning "indecent" words, and regulating the way in which someone says something, it flies in the face of the whole purpose to that amendment.

My feeling on the matter is that the cop didn't like the bumper sticker, and used this little-enforced rule to be a dick about it. If that's the case, he lose the case, and probably shouldn't be a cop anymore.

I can't beleive I'm agreeing with RendeR on this. Must be a wierd day.
So, you think it is okay to have the "N" word, the "F" word, the "C" word, etc. on publicly displayed objects? Can a private organization stop you from entering their property due to an objection to your license plate? Can a public organization stop you from entering public property due to an objection to the content on your license plate?

[WVUFAN]

So, you think it is okay to have the "N" word, the "F" word, the "C" word, etc. on publicly displayed objects? Can a private organization stop you from entering their property due to an objection to your license plate? Can a public organization stop you from entering public property due to an objection to the content on your license plate?

Yes, it should be okay to have those words on publically displayed objects. If someone finds objection to those words, that's their problem. Words are words, are are only given power because someone chooses to allow them that power. Otherwise, the "F" word is the same as the word "tree".

Sure, a private organization can stop you from entering their property for ANY reason.

No, a PUBLIC organization should not be able to stop you from entering due to what your t-shirt might say.

[larrymcg421]

Because SAT scores are a great way to measure intelligence. Or not.

[Grammaticus]

Yes, it should be okay to have those words on publically displayed objects. If someone finds objection to those words, that's their problem. Words are words, are are only given power because someone chooses to allow them that power. Otherwise, the "F" word is the same as the word "tree".

Sure, a private organization can stop you from entering their property for ANY reason.

No, a PUBLIC organization should not be able to stop you from entering due to what your t-shirt might say.
Sorry, but words have meaning. For example, you referenced "F" word as such, but referenced "tree" instead of "t" word. You did that for a reason.

Also, using freedom of speach as an excuse to act out and exhibit general bad behavior that causes an unsafe public environment is not simply protected by the constitution. Living in a civil environment causes some restraint.

[WVUFAN]

Sorry, but words have meaning. For example, you referenced "F" word as such, but referenced "tree" instead of "t" word. You did that for a reason.

Words only have the meaning you as the person listening or saying them give them. If people deemed "tree" to be an offensive word, then people would be demanding that we not say it. Again, it's not the word that people might object to, it's how they interpret that word. If you interpret it as a "bad" word, that's on you.

In order words, there's people out there that does not find the "F" word, or the "C" word offensive at all. Should they not be able to say those words for fear that someone might not like it? Free speech is just that.


Also, using freedom of speach as an excuse to act out and exhibit general bad behavior that causes an unsafe public environment is not simply protected by the constitution. Living in a civil environment causes some restraint.

Nothing about saying those words or this lady's bumper sticker caused an unsafe public environment. You may not like those words ... hell, I may not like those words, but no one has the right to deprive a person from using them. Words are words, and have no power not given to them. If you want people to stop using the "f" word, encourage people to stop being so damn offended when they hear it.

Freedom of Speech allows speech without restraint. No one's life is being threatened by an offensive word.

[st.cronin]

Words only have the meaning you as the person listening or saying them give them. If people deemed "tree" to be an offensive word, then people would be demanding that we not say it. Again, it's not the word that people might object to, it's how they interpret that word. If you interpret it as a "bad" word, that's on you.

In order words, there's people out there that does not find the "F" word, or the "C" word offensive at all. Should they not be able to say those words for fear that someone might not like it? Free speech is just that.



Nothing about saying those words or this lady's bumper sticker caused an unsafe public environment. You may not like those words ... hell, I may not like those words, but no one has the right to deprive a person from using them. Words are words, and have no power not given to them. If you want people to stop using the "f" word, encourage people to stop being so damn offended when they hear it.

Freedom of Speech allows speech without restraint. No one's life is being threatened by an offensive word.

By this logic, it should be perfectly ok for some girl to give me a handjob in the park during lunch, in full view of everybody.

[WVUFAN]

By this logic, it should be perfectly ok for some girl to give me a handjob in the park during lunch, in full view of everybody.

That's not speech, that's action. Big difference. A better analogy is some girl SAYS she's gonna give you a handjob in the park during lunch. That's protected speech.

[st.cronin]

That's not speech, that's action. Big difference. A better analogy is some girl SAYS she's gonna give you a handjob in the park during lunch. That's protected speech.

It's not a big difference in terms of your logic, and in terms of the way either case actually is percieved, and the effect on society.

[WVUFAN]

It's not a big difference in terms of your logic, and in terms of the way either case actually is percieved, and the effect on society.

It's a HUGE difference. One is speech, the other isn't. You're talking about an effect on society, I'm saying speech is free regardless of any perceived difference or effect on society.

Who determines what words are "bad" and offensive? You? Your neighbors? Who is to say what is offensive to me is to you? If your neighbor says "I object to the word BLAH", and your city agrees, does that mean you can't say it? It's silly -- they're simply words. As someone said earlier, there's no Constitutional protection from being offended.

[st.cronin]

It's a HUGE difference. One is speech, the other isn't. You're talking about an effect on society, I'm saying speech is free regardless of any perceived difference or effect on society.

Who determines what words are "bad" and offensive? You? Your neighbors? Who is to say what is offensive to me is to you? If your neighbor says "I object to the word BLAH", and your city agrees, does that mean you can't say it? It's silly -- they're simply words. As someone said earlier, there's no Constitutional protection from being offended.

So flag-burning is not a first amendment issue?

Your logic, as I understand it, allows for somebody to be offended by actions, but not words. So, no, there may not be Constitutional protection - but I don't know who is arguing that there is, and nor is there Constitutional protection for bad taste - the first amendment is actually very tightly constructed, and doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with what you're talking about.

[WVUFAN]

So flag-burning is not a first amendment issue?

Your logic, as I understand it, allows for somebody to be offended by actions, but not words. So, no, there may not be Constitutional protection - but I don't know who is arguing that there is, and nor is there Constitutional protection for bad taste - the first amendment is actually very tightly constructed, and doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with what you're talking about.

I think we're miscommunicating here. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this -- I'm not even talking about actions, none of my points have been about that. Sure, there's some actions that are protected under free speech, but that never was my point. My point is there is no such thing as "offensive" speech, and there should be no laws banning it. Even speech on bumper stickers.

[ISiddiqui]

By this logic, it should be perfectly ok for some girl to give me a handjob in the park during lunch, in full view of everybody.

Actually I wouldn't be opposed to allowing it... but, and you don't know how it pains me to say this, WVUFAN is correct in that that is action and not speech. There is nothing 'speech-like' about the action of getting a handjob in public (well unless you are arguing that it is done to protest laws against getting handjobs in public, which brings up interesting dilemmas). Burning the flag is political speech because it is trying to get a political point across.

[WVUFAN]

Actually I wouldn't be opposed to allowing it... but, and you don't know how it pains me to say this, WVUFAN is correct in that that is action and not speech. There is nothing 'speech-like' about the action of getting a handjob in public (well unless you are arguing that it is done to protest laws against getting handjobs in public, which brings up interesting dilemmas). Burning the flag is political speech because it is trying to get a political point across.

We agree on something. 1 out of 100 isn't bad. :) If it makes you feel any better, you convinced me on the whole Oscar thing -- I can see your point on it and my argument was wrong.

Woody Allen still sucks, though.

[ISiddiqui]

Holy Shit?! :eek:

You aren't pulling my leg with that one?

[WVUFAN]

Holy Shit?! :eek:

You aren't pulling my leg with that one?

Nope. Seriously. You were right, I was wrong on the Oscar argument.

[ISiddiqui]

Wow... now I think better of you ;).

Anyway, I think it's time to let this thread die. Apparently the limits have been articulated clearly by the courts and this becomes another non-issue.

[Dutch]

Actually I wouldn't be opposed to allowing it... but, and you don't know how it pains me to say this, WVUFAN is correct in that that is action and not speech.

Where does hate-speech fit into this debate?

[MrBigglesworth]

Where does hate-speech fit into this debate?
I think the courts have found that speech that incites people to violent acts is not protected.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed there is a distinction to be made about speech that is meant to make a point and speech meant to incite a riot or killings. Though, FWIW, I don't think hate speech should be illegalized. Hate crime, though, should be a factor to consider in sentancing.