LEO unravels over sticker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can't remember the name but the boy peeing?
If you have one on your vehicle in South Carolina you will be cited by SC highway patrol :what: I think the charge is "offensive display"......
 
Can't remember the name but the boy peeing?
Click to expand...

You mean Calvin, from Calvin and Hobbes? I think people should be cited for being stupid and unoriginal. Those were moderately funny 10 years ago...

I believe that society seems to be getting more uncouth, or maybe I am just getting old. As much as I'd like to see people exercise some restraint, especially when I am out in public with my child, I don't really trust the legislature to do a good job of regulating "obscene speech."
 
Can't remember the name but the boy peeing?
If you have one on your vehicle in South Carolina you will be cited by SC highway patrol I think the charge is "offensive display"......
Click to expand...
Sheesh. Those are on every third car here. The mojados even have one of the boy peeing on "La Migra". :rolleyes:
 
Bill of rights doesn't protect free speech--

So, here's the deal. The bill of rights, as written, does not protect the freedom of speech. Ironically, it does protect the right to keep and bear arms.

As written, it says "congress" can't make laws restricting. If the state or local laws want to restrict the right to free speech, that's completely legal (as written).

There is no such provision for "Arms"--simply that it shall not be infringed.

Imagine this--prior to writing a public article for publication (or even posting on a public forum) you had to go to a 12 hour class that cost $125, then apply to the state for a license to exercise free speech. Oh yeah, that license is $140 and is good for 4 years.

Same thing if you wanted to attend a church or carry able "out in the public".

Sorry for spiralling off over here, but I'm constantly angered at how easy we choke down the flaggrant disregard of the constitution (obviously, not this crowd). Hell, if part of the consitition can be ignored, it can ALL be ignored.

The words aren't:
"And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave,
O'er the land of the well-regulated and the home of the timid."
 
Reality check

"So, here's the deal. The bill of rights, as written, does not protect the freedom of speech. Ironically, it does protect the right to keep and bear arms.

As written, it says "congress" can't make laws restricting. If the state or local laws want to restrict the right to free speech, that's completely legal (as written)."


Asthose of us NOT stuck in an 18th Century time warp realize, the 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments were enacted to apply the Bill of Rights "as written" to the states.

As those of us with even a cursory knowledge of Constitutional law know, while not all of the BOR has been interpreted through those amendments to apply to the states, the FIRST Amendment HAS been.

The last time I looked, those amendments are part of the Constitution "as written." :rolleyes:
 
So in GB you get fined for eating an apple while driving (see other thread) and in the USA you can get arrested (!!) for having a bumper sticker saying "<beep> Bush"?
I don't know what's weirder. :what:
 
I dont see what the big deal is with "F--- this" or "F--- that" bumper stickers. I saw them when I was growing up, along with a lot of "S--- happens," I knew better than to say them. Dont get me wrong, its not like I think everyone should have profanity plastered over their ride, personaly I hate stickers, but its their car (jacket, shirt etc). I dont like it, but I can deal with it.
 
I wouldn't put that kind of sticker on my bumper, mainly because it doesn't interest me and I have no desire to create a misleading impression of myself in the fertile minds of others, but I see them and don't give them a second thought. As for the kids, yeah, I guess it's uncomfortable discussing "bad words" with them, but if you're afraid of your children learning those words you'd better keep them away from other kids. I'm pretty sure I knew every bad word I know now when I was seven; so did every other seven year old I knew. My parents didn't know I knew, because I didn't run around the house using them (I knew what would happen to me if I did :uhoh: ). I don't know what the laws for that jurisdiction provide for in such a situation, but if it's not illegal the cop has some explaining to do. As for the guy who spotted the sticker and flagged down the cop, he sounds like a troublemaker or someone with issues that would not make for a pleasant association . . . with me, at least.
 
Now, I am a Bush voter, but still: I saw lots of "W: The President" stickers here in Alabama (funny I never saw ONE back in MD :rolleyes: ) but I have also seen "F : The President" advertised on the internet.

Assuming that the offending sticker might be the above "F", then I can't see the issue here - implying profanity is not the same as doing it.

OTOH, if it is spelled out then I would take issue though it may require some thought....
 
So where should the line be drawn? I don't have a good answer. I don't see how F*** is any less profane than naked people. Yet, I doubt many of you would say that I have a right to cart around a billboard in a truck with naked people on it.

I also doubt that many would support my right to walk around in public with an M4 and shoot off blanks.

What I am trying to get at, is how far does my rights have to cut off someone elses rights, before someone has to step in and say 'Enough is Enough'?
 
jefnvk, there was once a concept called "consideration for others". Certain things were just not done in public in order not to offend others.

This could go overboard, of course, but in general it was merely seen as a part of courtesy and politeness. The lubrication in the gears of society. It takes no talent whatsoever to replace lubricant with sand. Nowadays it seems that way too many people take great delight in toting their sandpiles along with them; an attention-getting methodology, apparently. At best, immature.

We've become a mouthy, yappy society, particularly with the rise of the false notion that "My opinion is just as good as yours." People confuse the right to an opinion with the quality thereof.

Art
 
I dunno if this is in response to that story, but yesterday on the way home from work I saw a truck with a bumper sticker that said "Buck Fush"
 
That is what I am trying to get at. I don't support either of my examples. But should anyone step in and police people? I presume that at one point, people just simply didn't so it. Now, it seems people have the mindset tha 'Can I do it?' without thinking 'Should I do it?'. Like I said before, when out in public, I prefer not to be subject to that sort of stuff. I could care less if it is on TV or radio, I can turn those off or to another channel. When I am stuck behind this truck in traffic, I can't really turn it off. If it were on a bill board that I have to pass every day, I don't want to see it.

But now I am getting into what I don't want to see. It would be very easy to abuse powers based on what people want. So again, it gets back to how far can they go before they start violating my rights? And who will police (or even who can) them when I believe they have stepped over the line?

I have no problem with the lady making her point. I just have a problem with the way in which she chose to express herself.
 
Response proportionate to threat

We are exhorted to believe that a mere bumper sticker, even one using an obscenity, is such a threat to public safety and morals that:

1. It overrides the freedom of political speech expressly protected by the First Amendment; and

2. The police publicly accosting the owner of the vehicle bearing said sticker, banning her from the neighborhood and threatening her with arrest is a justified response.

This from the same Guardians of Freedom who wax wroth lest there be any perceived infringement of the Second Amendment, no less. :barf:

Apparently some find a police state far less repugnant than they claim. That, or they think a bully with a gun to wave and a badge to hide behind ISN'T a threat to them as well.

It appears that these myopics have difficulty either identifying the real threat, or cannot fathom a proportionate response to it.

Fortunately, Madison and those who voted for the BOR realized that tyranny from a mob is just as repressive as that by the state and provided remedies accordingly.......... :scrutiny:
 
And this...

Not included in those rights is the right not to be offended.
Click to expand...

...is the most important thing that was written in this thread. Conservative political correctness (often called "decency", "morale" or "family values") is just as bad as liberal political correctness (mostly known under the name of "tolerance" or "diversity").

You don't like the words I use? You think that my behaviour might have a bad influence on minors? Gee, that's tough... but that's probably how your gun-hating bleeding-heart liberal neighbour feels about the content of your gun safe, too. Live with it.


Regards,

Trooper
 
In Alabama a sticker that spells it out is illegal. I know; I was nearly given a citation for one.
Click to expand...

But that assumes anyone there can actually read it. An iffy proposition.

For a dern furriner, Trooper has it exactly right. Whether the behavior is something you like or dont like. Whether the sentiment is one you support or dont support, it doesnt really matter. The person has a legal, Constitutionally-protected right to display it. Being intimidated by some jack-boot LEO is not legal. It isnt moral either.
And, Tory, thanks for pointing out that the Constitution and its interpretation are complex subjects that require some knowledge. So much for the guy with the "The Constitution does not need a lawyer to interpret it" sig line.
 
Alabama state slogan: "At least we ain't Tennessee!"
Click to expand...

Nah. Thats the Arkansas slogan about Mississippi.

Tennessee's is "The Edumacashun State."

Which is better's than NJ's. NJ's is "You wanna slogan? I gotcher slogan right here, @#$%^&!"
 
Last edited:
trooper sez, "You don't like the words I use? You think that my behaviour might have a bad influence on minors? Gee, that's tough..."

The problem with that attitude for us Old Farts of a different generation is that we see it as childish and immature. The followup question is why people who no longer are children would behave in such a fashion.

A possibly more cynical view is that some people, lacking self-esteem, feel an overpowering need to receive attention. Sort of a "Look at me, Mommy!" deal. I guess I just see it as part of a general decline in social mores over these last three or four decades.

And it's not that I don't know the "potty words". I'm reasonably fluent in several languages besides English. I merely refrain from casual public use...

Look: If foul language is of casual use, how do you escalate when there is occasion to express extreme anger? One's credibility is already shot. "Aw, he ain't mad. He talks like that all the time."

The deadliest people I've ever known were generally polite and soft-spoken. Confident of their skills, they did not need to bluster...

Edit add: trooper, this isn't particularly aimed at you. It's the way I see a lot of what goes on into today's world.

Art
 
Art,
You could be 100% correct and yet your observation is still irrelevant. It is an issue of whether an LEO can harass someone for a bumper sticker. Whether I agree with dirty words being aired in public or not or agree with the sentiment or not is irrelevant. It is a free speech issue. Anyone who favors what the LEO did is ipso facto declaring that some rights are more important and some people are more deserving of them. And that's a big no-no in my book.
 
f*** Bush" is beyond the scope of what I consider acceptable in our society.
Click to expand...
Good for you.

Owning guns is beyond the scope of what Dianne Feinstein considers acceptable in our society.

So, who, precisely, gets to decide what's acceptable?

So then said 7 year old walks into class the next day and says "F*** Bush, not having any idea what it means and gets suspended from school. Then bumper sticker has then harmed someone.
Click to expand...

Um, no. The kid harmed himself by saying Words Not Allowed. His parents may or may not share culpability for failing to teach him that (some) people consider the word unacceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
War veteran accused of defacing pro-Bush cars
Replies
4
Views
371
Thin Black Line
T
M
  • Locked
If LEO asks if you have firearms during a Terry stop
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Moron Aboard
Replies
14
Views
1K
The Cavalry
T
D
  • Locked
South Carolina LEO in VA
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
D
  • Locked
Reno woman shoots alleged vehicle vandal
Replies
6
Views
409
Blackhawk
B
Back
Top