- Jurisdiction
- US Federal Law
I don't get it. Is drive-by cursing/insults not considered protected free speech even if racist, sexist, xenophobic, directed at LEOs, etc. as long as it doesn't insinuate any violent threats at all?
Non-violent cursing/insults not always protected free speech?
- Thread Starter BigJaj
- Start date
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Last time I looked, inciting a riot was a crime, disturbing the peace was a crime, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there wasn't one - was a crime, interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties was a crime.
You want "reasonable" limits on the Second Amendment, but "Oh no, don't touch the First Amendment."
smh
You want "reasonable" limits on the Second Amendment, but "Oh no, don't touch the First Amendment."
smh
Zigner
Well-Known Member
Except the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is protected speech...
Not that precendent matters to the Supreme Court in the current times.
Not that precendent matters to the Supreme Court in the current times.
zddoodah
Well-Known Member
Well...let's see:
"Allegedly chased." No. They actually did chase the guy.
"Allegedly made verbal remarks toward them." Did he? I couldn't hear anything that clearly came from that guy. What did he say?
Also, at the beginning of the shot, he picked something up from the ground. What was it? Why did he pick it up?
What exactly was happening in the area where the officers were congregated? What were they doing?
Unless we have clear answers to those questions, your question isn't much more than a pointless hypothetical.
"Allegedly chased." No. They actually did chase the guy.
"Allegedly made verbal remarks toward them." Did he? I couldn't hear anything that clearly came from that guy. What did he say?
Also, at the beginning of the shot, he picked something up from the ground. What was it? Why did he pick it up?
What exactly was happening in the area where the officers were congregated? What were they doing?
Unless we have clear answers to those questions, your question isn't much more than a pointless hypothetical.
Last edited:
army judge
Super Moderator
@BigJaj : Be smarter than the average human life form.
AJ's Ten Law Enforcement Suggestions
1 Don't harass the police.
2 Don't flee from any law enforcement personnel.
3 Never drive or operate a motor vehicle after consuming devil's lettuce, alcohol, narcotics, or other illicit substances.
4. If you don't address a traffic or parking citation, you'll end up in a filthy city or county jail cell.
5. Don't argue with any police officer. Take the citation, if you receive one, and politely thank the officer for doing her job.
6. Don't transport OPEN ALCOHOL containers inside the passenger compartment of your vehicle.
7. Always obey ALL of their traffic laws and ordinances. Failure to do so will only end in useless consequences for you.
8. Never allow your automobile insurance to lapse.
9. Make sure your vehicle registration and inspection requirements remain current.
10. Be wary when allowing friends, acquaintances, minors, to operate YOUR motor vehicke(s).
I once knew a guy, who knew this dude, that hated and reviled ALL forms and manner of law enforcement.
Well, dude couldn't back away from a "double dog dare", lest he'd lose face.
So dude, took the "double dog dare.
Dude told guy, "Follow me, Jack, and you'll see I ain't skerred."
Dude saw a cop walking his beat, honked his horn at him, and began cursing, insulting the cop's mother, wife, and children. Heck, dude spewed out curse words I never knew existed.
Let's look at a 1974 Supreme Court decision, one of my favorites.
doctrines and this standard is a judicial-legislative confrontation. The more frequent our intervention, which of late has been unrestrained, the more we usurp the prerogative of democratic government. Instead of applying constitutional limitations, we do become a 'council of revision.' If the Court adheres to its present course, no state statute or city ordinance will be acceptable unless it parrots the wording of our opinions.
25
This surely is not what the Framers intended and this is not our constitutional function. I would adhere to what Mr. Justice Murphy, a known champion of First Amendment freedoms, wrote for a unanimous bench in Chaplinsky, 315 U.S., at 571-572, 62 S.Ct., at 769:
26
'Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309—310, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213.' (Footnotes omitted.)
damned car or I will show you something." App. 27. Appellant denied that she had used 'any profanity toward the officer.' App. 37. The Municipal Judge credited Berner's testimony and disbelieved appellant and her husband.
2
We have no occasion in light of the result reached to address the conflict between this view and that of the framers of the Model Penal Code that suggests that even 'fighting words' as defined by Chaplinsky should not be punished when addressed to a police officer trained to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen. See Model Penal Code § 250.1, Comment 4 (Tent.Draft No. 13, 1961).
*
The facts in this case, and particularly the direct conflict of testimony as to 'who said what,' well illustrate the possibility of abuse. Ante, at 131 n.
1
'Section 49-7. Cursing, etc., police prohibited.
'It shall be unlawful and a breach of the peace for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.'
2
The suggestion that the ordinance is open to selective enforcement is no reason to strike it down. Courts are capable of stemming abusive application of statutes. See, e.g., Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 94 S.Ct. 187, 38 L.Ed.2d 170 (1973). Questions of credibility, moreover, have been resolved by courts for centuries and there is no reason to believe the so-called modern age requires any different treatment.
Mallie LEWIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
The U.S. guarantee of free speech is the most permissive in the world, but it is not absolute. The exceptions to it are not limited to communicating threats. Speech that is lewd or obscene, that may be reasonably understood to calculated to incite violence (even if the speech itself is not a threat), and speech that causes unnecessary widespread panic are among the types of speech that are not protected by the Constitution's First Amendment. The purpose of the First Amendment is not to give citizens a free pass to say anything and everything that comes to their mind. It is meant to protect speech the exchange of ideas, the communication of facts and opinions (other than mere insult or degradation of others), and most particularly political speech, which is vital to a functioning democractic system.
Whether any speech that falls outside the protection of the First Amendment may result in punitive action against the speaker/publisher depends on what federal and state laws there are, if any, that regulate such speech.
But how exactly is shouting "Fuck Trump" in front of LEOs considered an arrestable offense?
www.buzzfeed.com
People Can't Stop Laughing At These Federal Agents Trying To Catch A Cyclist In Chicago
"This is the best video you will see today."
zddoodah
Well-Known Member
Who says it is?
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Additional video reveals that, apparently, the cyclist taunted the agents by saying he was not a US citizen.
uk.news.yahoo.com
That part was conveniently omitted when the video was first posted.
For all of us (including me) who thought this was a First Amendment issue, well, God bless our collective stupidity for falling for the machinations of a media manipulator.
Border Patrol Agents Chase Cyclist After He Claims He's 'Not a US Citizen'
A group of United States Border Patrol agents in Chicago chased after a cyclist on Sunday, September 28, after he taunted them and repeatedly told them that he was “not a US citizen.”This footage was captured by Christopher Sweat, who said that agents chased after the cyclist after he “made...
That part was conveniently omitted when the video was first posted.
For all of us (including me) who thought this was a First Amendment issue, well, God bless our collective stupidity for falling for the machinations of a media manipulator.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
Just doing that isn't a crime. But that's not why the agents sought to arrest him. As Jack pointed out, the video you posted didn't include the entire interaction — conveniently leaving out that earlier he had repeatedly stated that he was not a U.S. citizen. The federal agents would then have reasonable suspicion to investigate further to determine if he had the legal right to stay in the U.S. If he refuses to cooperate with them that would justify detaining him (which can look just like an arrest to a bystander) while they investigate further to determine his status. Unfortunately, some people with an agenda are not above putting out misleading or false information to achieve their goals.
