Man arrested for scracthing out town name, replacing it w/"Tyranny" on ticket

[spearheadersarge]

Typical government authority over reach! You don't like Joe Citizen's anger at paying his rapidly falling in value dollars to the state and his expression of anger, you issue an arrest warrant. Academia, judiciary, government, law enforcement are all loaded with the Left. The Left's playbook is always the same; stifle and punish the opposition. Get smart with authority? Pay the price! As always there is no punishment for the violater of you rights.....

 

[Jack Burton]

I admit it, im misinformed. I had always believed that, as it relates to the 1st amendment, "speech" to be any public form of expression, as spoken or written language, visual depictions, or expressive actions.
I had always believed that all forms are protected under the 1st amendment, but their content may not be protected.
I thought difference between libel and slander is moot when discussing the concept that some “speech” is not protected.
I believe the statements made to the clerk “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” a standard laid out by the USSC as to what speech is considered obscene (while also taking state law into account)

The SCOTUS has defined various kinds of speech in many different ways, with protections also varying according to the type of speech.

"moot" differences is what wins lawsuits, and also puts people into jail when they are on the wrong side of the moot, so to speak.

Hmmmm.... so, for the record, you don't believe that a person engaging in obvious "political speech" is actually engaging in "political speech" unless he does in the destro approved fashion and format. And what is your relationship with law enforcement again?

 

[Jack Burton]

Such maturity shown on both sides of this one.

immature behaviour on the part of a citizen is not an excuse to put him in jail. We get the option to act that way... the government doesn't.

 

[Destro]

The SCOTUS has defined various kinds of speech in many different ways, with protections also varying according to the type of speech.

"moot" differences is what wins lawsuits, and also puts people into jail when they are on the wrong side of the moot, so to speak.

Hmmmm.... so, for the record, you don't believe that a person engaging in obvious "political speech" is actually engaging in "political speech" unless he does in the destro approved fashion and format. And what is your relationship with law enforcement again?

**** your ****** *** town is not "political speech"

 

[Destro]

The SCOTUS has defined various kinds of speech in many different ways, with protections also varying according to the type of speech.

keep trying

 

[Jack Burton]

**** your ****** *** town is not "political speech"

Last I looked it was the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of What Destro Thinks is Acceptable to Him."

And we do notice that the courts agreed with me... not you.

 

[Jack Burton]

keep trying

Persuasive counter-argument you put forth there.

For the record... this is the kind of stuff that I study daily...

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm

 

[jsharmon7]

immature behaviour on the part of a citizen is not an excuse to put him in jail. We get the option to act that way... the government doesn't.

I'm not defending either side, just stating that the judge and the speeder both acted like children. Pretty sad.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I'm not defending either side, just stating that the judge and the speeder both acted like children. Pretty sad.

Remind me, which one is paid from tax payer monies to exercise good judgement and which one is not?

 

[jsharmon7]

Remind me, which one is paid from tax payer monies to exercise good judgement and which one is not?

The judge. What's your point? Both acted like immature children throwing a tantrum, no?

 

[djhuckle]

SHUT UP B1TCHES!!!

 

[Destro]

And we do notice that the courts agreed with me... not you.

technically it's a tie

 

[Jack Burton]

technically it's a tie

Technically, no. It's not even in the same universe as a "tie."

It's obvious you have not read the judge's decision. I'll quote it for you to save oyu the time...

"no citation is necessary for this Court to determine that the language under the circumstances here, offensive as it is, is protected. The charge is dismissed."

You really have no excuse for not having read it, since the direct link is posted upstream from here.

I expect better from you.

 

[spearheadersarge]

Its the old "Do as I say and don't **** me off" rule. Any person in authority can and usually does abuse said authority when they feel their position isn't being respected enough. Cops and Judges are very good examples of this situation. You can have the right and protected speech but if you **** one of them off, it will go badly for you, even if you are proved to have been "legally protected" later. Clowns need to be reminded on a daily basis that there are rules and that they can't arbitrarily put your own standards into the situation!

 

[Destro]

Technically, no. It's not even in the same universe as a "tie."

It's obvious you have not read the judge's decision. I'll quote it for you to save oyu the time...

"no citation is necessary for this Court to determine that the language under the circumstances here, offensive as it is, is protected. The charge is dismissed."

You really have no excuse for not having read it, since the direct link is posted upstream from here.

I expect better from you.

I've read the decision and your wrong, no matter how much irrelevant you cut, paste, and/or link

 

[Fargo]

I admit it, im misinformed. I had always believed that, as it relates to the 1st amendment, "speech" to be any public form of expression, as spoken or written language, visual depictions, or expressive actions.
I had always believed that all forms are protected under the 1st amendment, but their content may not be protected.
I thought difference between libel and slander is moot when discussing the concept that some “speech” is not protected.
I believe the statements made to the clerk “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” a standard laid out by the USSC as to what speech is considered obscene (while also taking state law into account)

How does it lack political value when it is plainly political speech? Is it because it purports a position you are opposed to in a fashion you don't like? The standard you cite is the one from all the strip club cases, not the standard for political speech.

Like it or not, you get a whole lot more protection under the 1st amendment when your commentary is political and directed against the state. It is a whole lot less when it is being used to protect taking off your clothes for money.

Plus, the stuff that guy wrote doesn't even come close to meeting the standard for obscenity as it currently exists. You have to get REALLY nasty before the courts find something to be obscene. Remember, they just struck down the Bestiality Porn statute a couple of years ago based upon it intruding into non-obscene matter


Joe

 

[Jack Burton]

I've read the decision and your wrong, no matter how much irrelevant you cut, paste, and/or link

There ya go, Dear Readers. I can't argue against willful blindness and general mopery and expect to have a fruitful, meaningful discussion.

The phrase "The charge is dismissed" has a new, unique meaning for destro. Kinda reminds me of this sad fellow...

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

 

[Destro]

"The charge is dismissed"

there you go again...

 

[GunnerDan]

I think that Destro either is completely thick headed or has some kind of a reading comprehension problem. We all have read the ruling and Destro still continues to think, incorrectly I may add, that there was some reason to arrest this person.

Gunner

 

[Jack Burton]

I think that Destro either is completely thick headed or has some kind of a reading comprehension problem. We all have read the ruling and Destro still continues to think, incorrectly I may add, that there was some reason to arrest this person.

Gunner

naw... he knows he is in the wrong... he just got his teat caught in the wringer and hasn't figured out how to find the reverse gear yet...