1st Amendment vs. Bumper Sticker "FU Trump and FU You for Voting for Him"

[emilynghiem]

Just imagine what would happen with driver if he put stickers like 'All Antifa gangsters in prison' on his car.

That's fine Baron but not using the F word on a public display when this isn't allowed on billboards or license plates or ads.

 

[JoeMoma]

HALP! I'm being provoked by bumper sticker!

You use that language around your kids?

A lot of people do....some in public.

 

[emilynghiem]

A sheriff went looking for a truck with a profane anti-Trump sticker. He found controversy instead.

Texas penal code describes disorderly conduct as “intentionally or knowingly [using] abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.” Making “an offensive gesture or display in a public place” is also prohibited if “the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.”


But the ACLU cited a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Cohen v. California, in which the high court overturned a man’s disturbing-the-peace conviction after he’d gone to a courthouse in Los Angeles wearing a jacket that said “F‑‑k the Draft.”

=====================
I don't agree that the environment in a CA courtroom is the same as displaying an obscene advertisement on a car sticker in public and especially on roadways with moving traffic (and children in cars who could be exposed). I believe the best way to address these cases are locally, between the people complaining who are directly affected.

I agree with the Sheriff in resolving complaints that the obscene sticker was causing disruption of the peace, distraction to drivers, and a nuisance to the local residents.

If someone advertised an obscene message on a car, or had an obscene reference on a license plate, this would not be allowed. Kids can be exposed to the obscenity without a way to "change the channel" or avoid the source. Obscene words in public broadcasts such as radio/TV are not allowed during regular hours, though some restrictions are relaxed for late night.

I also agree that the drivers/displayers of the bumper sticker have the right to free speech and to seek permission to exercise their rights. But if the residents around them say no, that's not welcome, they have the right to refuse being imposed upon as well. You can't just walk into a public place and make obscene gestures or statements, or other people will complain; someone will have to ask the person to resolve the issue civilly and not disturb others with the obscene language used.

I agree with both sides, and would have asked them to resolve it mutually.
The way this case ended, the authorities found open warrants on the driver and pursued an arrest for that.

They still didn't resolve the root issue. I think it is up to the people affected locally to decide if it is disruptive or not. In these case, too many people complained to authorities, so apparently it was considered disruptive and a breach of the peace.

The Sheriff handled it respectfully as possible, and only sought to communicate the complaints to the driver to request they resolve it. The driver refused, so they found another way around it.

Are you from here ? Really, this was nothing but a clever way to collect a warrant on the woman. Honestly, hi do believe the sheriff saying he was concerned for the drivers safety. But in the end they just wanted the warrant . And New Braunsfels can not be a good place to have a number sticker like that.

???
I thought it was the other way around Crixus

They couldn't identify the truck or owners, after they got complaints.
So they posted the photo to find the owner and make contact.
Then after they discussed the problem, they ran the name through their records and found an outstanding warrant. So they used that as a shortcut way to do something in response to complaints .

 

[JoeMoma]

No, it's NOT a free speech issue. I'm sick and damned tired of hearing people shout, "First Amendment!" to try to justify doing whatever they want, whenever they want, with no recognition of the rights of other people and demanding that there be no consequences whatsoever.

This is why communities have disorderly conduct laws: to delineate the point where your "freedom of speech" starts infringing on everyone else's freedoms.

Be sick and tired of it all you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that having a swear on your truck isn't aganist the law. It's tacky and vulgar, but shouldn't be aganist the law in the my opinion. Also, you're freedom isn't being infringed upon b/c you read curse words in public. Truck Nutz are crass as well. Should they be made illegal as well?

In South Carolina you will get pulled over for them. I forgot about those things. Lol

Swears, Calvin peeing on whatever, the "Shocker" decal, and, Truck Nutz on cars are all super trashy to me.

I've heard of people being stopped for those also in SC.

 

[JoeMoma]

Fuck the people that voted for him. Fuck em all to hell.

Fuck the cops that wish to be fascist assholes too.

You are going to get an STD with all that fucking. Probably already have one!

 

[emilynghiem]

No, it's NOT a free speech issue. I'm sick and damned tired of hearing people shout, "First Amendment!" to try to justify doing whatever they want, whenever they want, with no recognition of the rights of other people and demanding that there be no consequences whatsoever.

This is why communities have disorderly conduct laws: to delineate the point where your "freedom of speech" starts infringing on everyone else's freedoms.

Be sick and tired of it all you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that having a swear on your truck isn't aganist the law. It's tacky and vulgar, but shouldn't be aganist the law in the my opinion. Also, you're freedom isn't being infringed upon b/c you read curse words in public. Truck Nutz are crass as well. Should they be made illegal as well?

Okay, what part of there being a law against it, cited very carefully by the sheriff, are you not understanding? Are you so simple-minded that you think the Constitution is the ONLY set of laws in this country?

You're welcome to think it SHOULDN'T be against the law, if you wish, but unless you live in THAT community and can convince enough other people to agree with you that there's some compelling reason to allow others to make life miserable for them with their crass, boorish behavior, your thoughts on the subject don't amount to a fart in a wind tunnel. I think you'll find that most people don't wish to live in a chaotic free-for-all where the rules are made by the most uncivilized among us.

While we're sharing our thoughts, I think it says a lot about you that you don't value, or even seem to be aware of, any freedom to live peacefully without being visually and aurally assaulted every time you leave your house by those who cannot gain attention by any means other than behaving like primitives.

As for your false analogy of "all crass behavior must be illegalized, or none can be", I think you would find, if you had any mature, civilized behavior in you, that it is not only possible for communities to draw lines of what they will and will not tolerate, but that they do so on a regular basis, and have every right to. It's like we live in a society, instead of an anarchy, or something.

You’re in no position to refer to others as ‘simple-minded’ given the stupidity of this post.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the validity of state and local laws are subject to Constitutional case law, in this case First Amendment jurisprudence – where the speech expressed on the bumper sticker is clearly entitled to Constitutional protections.

That you and others on the right hostile to the rule of law oppose that speech on subjective, partisan grounds doesn’t ‘justify’ prosecuting speech that you oppose.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
1. If there is Constitutional free speech that trumps all rules and restrictions how do you explain obscenity laws that prevent people from broadcasting the F S or B word during the prime time hours or radio stations can lose their license. Why don't we hear Madonna's F bomb speech on TV news. Don't you think there are laws in place for obscenity ?
2. As for Constitutional laws of the land, the same free exercise of religion that protects your right to express and exercise your beliefs and creeds including political, also protects the beliefs of others who don't agree with yours!

We have equal right to petition the govt to correct areas of infringement, but at the same time cannot expect to abuse govt to Establish or to Prohibit the equal exercise and beliefs of others. Otherwise those ppl will protest and petition to defend Their Beiefs from infringement.

Thus we should seek laws that accommodate both sides beliefs, either by being neutral, mutually inclusive and or separating and letting each group have their own policy if it involves private beliefs where they disagree.

You have your beliefs but govt cannot impose those against the beliefs of others, where both can be equally practiced respectively similar to separate religions or denominations. Religious should never be abused to violate rights or beliefs of others, so why should political parties be allowed to do that with their beliefs imposed through govt against the beliefs of others?

 

[MaryL]

I voted for Trump. I don't like him, either. Who cares? It scares me that anyone makes bumper stickers a issue.

 

[Darkwind]

This is solely about prosecuting political dissent, not alleged ‘disorderly conduct,’ in violation of the First Amendment.

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Fighting words - Wikipedia

 

[MaryL]

The 1st Amendment. Free speech. People don't need to even learn English. But we have to redact and amend children's books like Huckleberry Fin because they offend because of certain words. Excuse me?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi MaryL and also C_Clayton_Jones

In this case the publicly displayed sticker on the truck contained the F word in large enough print the size of advertising. Multiple complaints were reported to local law enforcement.

You can blame politics or you can compare policies that bar the F word in advertising or broadcasts to the public.

CCJ if the F word were directed at Obama and Obama voters similar would result because of the F word. Even without that, as you point out there might still be complaints on this as politically motivated. However it's the F word that makes the difference and crosses the line between protected speech and obscenity not allowed in public print or broadcast advertising.

 

[MaryL]

But you can't say the "N" word on this board. I loved Tom Sawyer but they want that banned, too. Despite the fact evey black rap song ever uses the N word. Black lives Do matter, despite the fact blacks tend to be their worst nemesis.Such is this twilight zone reality we live in.

 

[Crixus]

A sheriff went looking for a truck with a profane anti-Trump sticker. He found controversy instead.

Texas penal code describes disorderly conduct as “intentionally or knowingly [using] abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.” Making “an offensive gesture or display in a public place” is also prohibited if “the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.”


But the ACLU cited a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Cohen v. California, in which the high court overturned a man’s disturbing-the-peace conviction after he’d gone to a courthouse in Los Angeles wearing a jacket that said “F‑‑k the Draft.”

=====================
I don't agree that the environment in a CA courtroom is the same as displaying an obscene advertisement on a car sticker in public and especially on roadways with moving traffic (and children in cars who could be exposed). I believe the best way to address these cases are locally, between the people complaining who are directly affected.

I agree with the Sheriff in resolving complaints that the obscene sticker was causing disruption of the peace, distraction to drivers, and a nuisance to the local residents.

If someone advertised an obscene message on a car, or had an obscene reference on a license plate, this would not be allowed. Kids can be exposed to the obscenity without a way to "change the channel" or avoid the source. Obscene words in public broadcasts such as radio/TV are not allowed during regular hours, though some restrictions are relaxed for late night.

I also agree that the drivers/displayers of the bumper sticker have the right to free speech and to seek permission to exercise their rights. But if the residents around them say no, that's not welcome, they have the right to refuse being imposed upon as well. You can't just walk into a public place and make obscene gestures or statements, or other people will complain; someone will have to ask the person to resolve the issue civilly and not disturb others with the obscene language used.

I agree with both sides, and would have asked them to resolve it mutually.
The way this case ended, the authorities found open warrants on the driver and pursued an arrest for that.

They still didn't resolve the root issue. I think it is up to the people affected locally to decide if it is disruptive or not. In these case, too many people complained to authorities, so apparently it was considered disruptive and a breach of the peace.

The Sheriff handled it respectfully as possible, and only sought to communicate the complaints to the driver to request they resolve it. The driver refused, so they found another way around it.

Are you from here ? Really, this was nothing but a clever way to collect a warrant on the woman. Honestly, hi do believe the sheriff saying he was concerned for the drivers safety. But in the end they just wanted the warrant . And New Braunsfels can not be a good place to have a number sticker like that.

???
I thought it was the other way around Crixus

They couldn't identify the truck or owners, after they got complaints.
So they posted the photo to find the owner and make contact.
Then after they discussed the problem, they ran the name through their records and found an outstanding warrant. So they used that as a shortcut way to do something in response to complaints .

I heard it on the radio at work. I did not hear all of that, but I will say, they don’t play with warrants. I’m pretty sure you are right about the complaints. Hard to believe no one sent a license plat number.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Fantastic bumper sticker

Fuck Obama <-- better

 

[TheOldSchool]

Driver with 'F-Trump' sticker adds local sheriff to truck display

 

[jillian]

Free speech is one thing, she is obviously a provocateur though. I would suggest though, that the second part of her sticker, the "F YOU!" could create some problems for her. Not everyone takes kindly to being called that to their face when driving.

where is being a "provacateur" not protected by the first amendment, shill?

 

[jillian]

Fantastic bumper sticker

Fuck Obama <-- better

only to rightwingnut pond scum.

 

[emilynghiem]

UPDATE:
Owner of 'F--- Trump' truck, attorney threaten civil rights lawsuit over dispute with sheriff

Truck driver threatens civil lawsuit,
apparently with support or funding behind it
to make a political statement.

 

[emilynghiem]

But you can't say the "N" word on this board. I loved Tom Sawyer but they want that banned, too. Despite the fact evey black rap song ever uses the N word. Black lives Do matter, despite the fact blacks tend to be their worst nemesis.Such is this twilight zone reality we live in.

Dear MaryL
It depends on context.
One of the funniest comedy routines I saw live
was a local comedian making fun of his own Latino heritage.
It's totally different if someone makes fun of Latino's
as an outsider putting others down collectively as a group.

I learned how sensitive this can be
when a comedian's routine I really thought was "funny cute" charming and well done
(a Latino comedian from LA doing an impression of the accents of Vietnamese women at the nail salon), turned out to have offended the Vietnamese community, especially
the association of nail salon professionals, where one of the local presidents
spoke out against that video as racist and insulting to the Vietnamese.
When I explained that it was meant as good natured and "cute" funny, and not mean to make fun of anyone in a mean, negative way, that helped to bridge the gap in understanding.

In general if someone from a group makes references or jokes concerning
their OWN ethnic culture or social identity,
that's DIFFERENT from someone from the outside
coming across with exploitative or other negative intent.



of the culture or accents,

 

[theHawk]

Funny how liberals are loving this classless display of vulgarity in public.

What happened to safe spaces? I guess that is only for offended liberals. Kids that are out in public aren’t so lucky, they get to read “Fuck You” because some (D)-bag is mad about the Donald winning.

Keep it classy libs.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Fantastic bumper sticker

Fuck Obama <-- better

only to rightwingnut pond scum.

^^^. Libtards don't like it when we turn their shit back on them.b