[Tall Man]

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3495709,00.html

Sticker stuck in cop's craw
He's subject of probe after coming unglued over bumper theme

By Brian D. Crecente, Rocky Mountain News
January 25, 2005

A Denver police sergeant is under investigation for allegedly threatening to arrest a woman Monday for displaying on her truck a derogatory bumper sticker about President Bush.

"He told her that this was a warning and that the next time he saw her truck, she was going to be arrested if she didn't remove the sticker," said Alinna Figueroa, 25, assistant manager of The UPS Store where the confrontation took place. "I couldn't believe it."

Denver police have initiated an investigation into the alleged incident, said Police Chief Gerry Whitman. He declined to comment further.

About 11 a.m., Shasta Bates, 26, was standing in the shopping center store in the 800 block of South Monaco Parkway when a man walked in and started arguing with her about a bumper sticker on the back of her truck that had "F--- Bush" in white letters on a black background.

"He was saying it was very sick and wrong and you shouldn't be doing that," Bates said. "He was very offended by it. I said, 'You didn't have to take it so personally.' "

The two argued for a few minutes, and then the man walked out of the store and stood behind Bates' truck. A few minutes later, the man flagged down police Sgt. Michael Karasek, who was patrolling the area.

Rocky Mountain News reporter Katie Kerwin McCrimmon, who happened to be at the store at the time, walked up to the two and asked what was going on.

The man pointed the bumper sticker out to McCrimmon, and then Karasek told her that it was illegal because it was profane, McCrimmon said.

Reached late Monday, City Attorney Cole Finnegan said he didn't believe there were any city ordinances against displaying a profane bumper sticker.

Karasek then walked into the store and confronted Bates.

"He said, 'You need to take off those stickers because it's profanity and it's against the law to have profanity on your truck,' " Bates said. "Then he said, 'If you ever show up here again, I'm going to make you take those stickers off and arrest you. Never come back into that area.' "

McCrimmon, who had followed the officer into the store, said Karasek wrote down the woman's license-plate number and then told her: "You take those bumper stickers off or I will come and find you and I will arrest you."

Bates said she hasn't had many complaints about her sticker, which has shared the space on the back of her truck with many other stickers since August.

She said she put the sticker on her truck because she disagrees with Bush's stance on homosexuality and "other issues."

"I get some older men who pull up at the side of me and start yelling and cussing," she said, "but it's not a crime unless they take some action."

Colorado ACLU Legal Director Mark Silverstein said that the alleged threat of arrest clearly violates First Amendment protection.

"The Supreme Court considered a case about 30-some years ago where a person was prosecuted for wearing a jacket that said, 'F--- the draft,' on the back. The Supreme Court said states could not prohibit people from wearing such a jacket," he said. "They said, 'One man's profanity is another man's lyric.' "

Ted Halaby, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said that while he finds the bumper sticker's message distasteful, he also realizes that it's probably protected under the First Amendment.

"There are all sorts of derogatory bumper stickers that seem to be covered under the First Amendment," he said, "whether or not you find them personally distasteful."

===========


Now, I'm not fond of profane stickers, t-shirts, etc., of any persuasion. But my goodness, it just wouldn't occur to me to initiate a confrontation over the issue when my ability to avert my eyes and keep walking was not compromised.

Tell me: Imagine yourself in similar circumstances. Now imagine finding yourself needing to leave in a hurry for reasons wholly unrelated to the confrontation noted above. Exiting the UPS store, you find Mr. Concerned Citizen standing behind your truck in a resolute manner, thus hampering your ability to back your vehicle out of its parking space. What would you do?

TM

[Zundfolge]

A Denver police sergeant...

Well there's the problem right there. Denver PD has a history of jackbooted thuggery*. Although I must say I'm surprised this particular thuggery was done in defense of a *gasp* Republican!



*(apologies to the good officers in Denver ... all 4 of you :p )

[JPL]

Why do I have a funny feeling he'll be promoted and hailed as a hero?

[cslinger]

Tasteless with no imagination yes. Nothing more though. Somebody needs to take a little leave time and maybe do some nice calm fishing or something.

I probably would have told her that it lacked imagination and then told her some of my more favorite bumper stickers that I have seen regarding Bush. Hey humor is humor and I can take it just as well as I can dish it out. :D

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Some states have laws against the public display of profanity, aimed at young children, usually less than 14 years of age.

GA has a provision under Disorderly Conduct for “using” profanity around a child under 14, which is an arrestable offense. It does not say anything about the “display” of profanity but I would not want to be the one to challenge that law simply because I wanted to show the world just how dim-witted I was.

You can go to jail for saying F--- Bush around a child under 14, why not go to jail for displaying the same?

Most children 13 and under can read, I hope…

The lady is a senseless loon for placing the bumper sticker on her vehicle in the first place, regardless of what the first amendment says.

Common sense is more or less a given that is implied or instinctively accepted by most courts and clearly she has none or refuses to utilize what little she does possess.

[orangeninja]

I don't know....I have seen people cited for profanity here in Texas for having the F-word on their shirt or hat or the like.

[Old Dog]

Gee, another "rogue cop" thread, another opportunity for LEO bashing ...

While I in no way condone the misguided actions of this one cop ... I can almost appreciate the fact that there is at least one person in Denver attempting to uphold some standard of public decency in the community (of course, one has to wonder who really cares about bumper stickers any more) ... A sticker on one's car with an obscenity on it is hardly a sign of a polite society. More a sign of the lack of class on the part of the vehicle's owner, and guaranteed to get more negative attention than positive agreement ...

For myself, I always hated having to answer my six-year-old daughter's questions about bumper stickers while we sat at stoplights -- "Daddy, what's ____ mean?" "Uh, honey, it, uh, well ..."

But "jack-booted thuggery?" Only "four good cops" in the whole city? Wow, guess we don't want to be visiting Denver again if things are that bad there ... if the cops there react to bumper stickers, what do they do when they see out-of-state license plates?

[SteveS]

Tasteless, yes. Rude, yes. Unimaginative, yes. Still, it is most likely protected speech. IIRC, there is a case from the early 70's (Cohen v. CA?) where a man was wearing a jacket that said f*** the Draft. He was arrested and his case made it up the Sup. Ct. where they said that it was protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Here in MI, we had the cussing canoeist (sp.?) where a man was chaged for violating a law against swearing in front of women or children. I believe he was the first person charged under this law in decades. An appellate court threw out the conviction and said the law was unconstitutional.

[USP45usp]

As for the bumper sticker, hey, it's a bumper sticker. I've seen the same one with Kerry instead of Bush. I believe that the same company makes both of them, just capitalism at it's best.

Just remember folks, the 1st amendment does say Freedom of Speech and it doesn't have any exceptions. As we always point out that the Shall not be Infringed doesn't have an exception clause, neither should the freedom of speech. (And yes, you can yell fire in a crowded area, but that isn't the crime, the crime is inciting a riot/stampede).

Cuss words were looked upon as coming from the uneducated back in our forefathers time (when used around women/children) but other then that, they had no problems with the words or else there would have been exceptions written in.

So, I say that the law (if it is the law) is wrong. That if it is the law then the LEO was just enforcing the rule of that law (and if not then he was out of bounds on his authority), and that now since it's been brought forward and a lawsuit ensures and the use of such words are ruled free speech then all I have to say is:

F--- Off :evil:

Wayne

*that was a joke folks, don't get sensitive about it.

[jsalcedo]

I support the officers actions.

I have kids and I don't want them exposed to the work F*** until as late as humanly possible.

There needs to be some standard of public decency. She can have all the
F*** the world stickers inside her home but don't lay that crap out there where kids can see it.


What if someone had a custom paintjob on their van that showed explicit intercourse and parked it in front of a preschool? Would it then be ok for the cop to go after the van owner?

I don't care if the sticker said F*** Kerry, F*** Hitler or F*** gun control it's just not acceptable.

[Azrael256]

There needs to be some standard of public decency. And there is. I avoid using profanity, particularly in public, as much as possible. This standard was enforced by my parents until I left their house, and I will enforce it on my children someday. When a person fails to live up to my standard, I see it as a reflection of their character, and I am not positively impressed. Obviously you and I share the same standard.

The supreme court has long held that there are multiple types of speech. If a person were to use profanity in an advertisement, the courts would treat it as "commercial speech," and thus not enjoying the same First Amendment protections. A fine example of this would be a sexually explicit billboard advertising a "gentleman's club." While legal challenges to the advertisement might not stand up in court, the ad is still much less likely to survive the authorities' challenge.

In this case, the "offender" is clearly practicing what is deemed "political speech." She is making a statement which is not threatening and does not have an obvious tendency to incite public disorder (yelling "FIRE" in a theatre) about a prominent public figure. That is basically the extent of the test. Therefore, the acceptability of her language is irrelevant. Tasteless as it may be, she needs to be left alone by the police.

What if someone had a custom paintjob on their van that showed explicit intercourse and parked it in front of a preschool? In that case, the police would be justified in certain limited actions. They cannot tell the owner to repaint the van, but the police would do fine to order the owner to remove the van under threat of arrest. Such an image, in its particular location, stands a high probability of inciting disorder. Furthermore, how likely do you think it is that such an event would not have incited a riot before the police arrived? Were the owner to park the vehicle in front of his favorite drinking establishment, the justification for demanding its removal would evaporate.

[HungSquirrel]

I actually had the same thing happen to me down here in Alabama...for the same exact phrase! :neener:

Here's the unconstitutional Alabama law against profanity:
Section 13A-12-131

Public display of obscene sticker, sign, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any person to display in public any bumper sticker, sign, or writing which depicts obscene language descriptive of sexual or excretory activities. Any person convicted of violation of this section shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and shall be punished as prescribed by law.

(Acts 1987, No. 87-808.)

And here (http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cohen.html)'s the Supreme Court case that says public profane writings of a political nature are perfectly legal. (Cohen v. California)

So :cuss: Bush!

[Sean85746]

I have no problem with the display of the sticker, though the sentiment is not one I share. It is not one I would have on my truck, mainly because I personally don't go in for that kind of language around kids.

Don't get me wrong...I have a potty mouth, but around kids, I really try to set a good example.

My issue is this:

What about the new fad of younger "hip-hop" types playing XXX porn on the DVD players in their SUV's, so they can be seen by anyone on the street?

How much further have we slid down the slippery slope of plain old good taste and common sense?

It seems like an awful easy way to remove any shadow of a doubt, in my eyes anyway, that you are not just a moron with a loud stereo, but you are also totally lacking in class, taste, decorum, manners, plain old common courtesy, and brain power.

The local officer I spoke with said there is nothing they can do about it, even though displaying pornography to a minor is a felony.

[Standing Wolf]

Oh, gosh! Doesn't that Denver cop have any of those mean terrible wicked bad awful horrible dangerous homicidal so-called "assault rifles" to arrest?

[spacemanspiff]

gee, all the cop shoulda done is alter the sticker to add "MY" somewhere in there, and it'd be a-ok.

:neener:

[jefnvk]

Some of us want to live a life without profanity.

She wants to rephrase it, fine. Profanity is to be used in private. I am not reading the government supressing speech here, I am reading the government asking this lady to be decent.

I would bet that if I pulled a billboard around town with a naked lady on it, I'd have someone come after me too.

[saltydog452]

Way to go spiff.. :D

[Tory]

Get real.

"I am not reading the government supressing speech here, I am reading the government asking this lady to be decent. "

First, let's dispose of the disingenous analogies. This is NOT a case of public pornography a la billboards towed behind cars, parked in front of daycare centers or readily visible via DVD players in vehicles.

It IS political speech, precisely what the First Amendment was designed to protect. Don't like it? Don't read it or get over it.

"Requests" from the government? Like a "request" for identification? Your gun's serial number? Your Social Security number? THOSE friendly, compliance-optional requests? Get a grip. Or a job with the TSA. :scrutiny:

So a COP who yells at someone AND threatens her in public with arrest because he PERSONALLY finds her flavor of politics not to his liking ISN'T a bully with a badge? What part of "intimidation" do you not comprehend?

That cop is out of control and a Federal lawsuit waiting to happen. Check 42 USC 1983 and tell us how a police officer abusing his power to threaten a citizen with arrest in the utter absence of ANY crime is NOT a civil rights violation. I'll be waiting for that legal analysis.

Some real "freedom fighters" on this thread. Fighting AGAINST the freedom of anyone whose thoughts they disagree with....... :barf:

[Sindawe]

Some real "freedom fighters" on this thread. Fighting AGAINST the freedom of anyone whose thoughts they disagree with.......

Yeppers. "Freedom for me, but not for thee."

I find the display of meat all nice and neat and clean in a plastic wrapper to be as offensive as some here find certain anglo-saxon curse words. In my view it sanitizes just where that meat comes from, and I don't want my kids* exposed to the dehumanizing influence of packaged meat for as long as possible. Can we have some decency and keep that stuff from public view?




* I don't have kids, but I trust you get the point.

[jsalcedo]

I don't have kids, but I trust you get the point.

Free speech is conveyance of ideas.

If you don't like a politician then have a bumpersticker that says "I hate so and so" or "John Smith is a bad president"

Speech is regulated on all the airwaves. Rules abound regarding what you can and cannot say either by the FCC or self regulation.

I think people should be able "say" anything they want.
Even the NAMBLA people are allowed to say what they want they are just not allowed to advocate it.

Plastering the word "F***" in bolt letters on the back of a vehicle where my 7 year old is going to ask "daddy what is f*** Bush" is beyond the scope of what I consider acceptable in our society.

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.

If you advocate letting people write "F***" wherever they want then we should allow it on Sesame street, public radio, billboards and school essays so we can just get it over with.

[Robert Hairless]

I haven't been 26 years old in far too long a time but I wonder how Shasta Bates, 26, will like it if people recognize that she has given them license to profane her, her parents, her siblings, and whatever else she might hold dear. My suspicion is that she might be incensed. But that's the most marvellous aspect of rudeness and lack of consideration: they beget rudeness and inconsiderate behavior. Young Miss Bates has an unnecessarily rough life in store for herself. She is creating it herself. I also suspect that she might insist upon receiving respect from other people. She doesn't seem to realize that one must earn respect.

[Erinyes]

I find it highly hipocrytical for some of you guys who fight so hard for our Second Amendment rights to say our First Amendment rights should be curtailed, especially in regard to political speech. I see so many complaints about how we're becoming a nanny state, and then see some of y'all say that we need laws restricting profanity.

Profanity may be uncooth, uninspired, and rude, but the Constitution protects our rights to be uncooth, uninspired, and rude. What's the difference between banning curse words from any form of public speech, and banning, say, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs from civilian firearms? Neither serve a particularly useful function. Both have a tendency to offend those with fragile sensibilities.

The Constitution guarantees many rights for us. Included in those are Ms. Bates' right to free political speech. Not included in those rights is the right not to be offended.

[thorn726]

Well there's the problem right there. Denver PD has a history of jackbooted thuggery*. Although I must say I'm surprised this particular thuggery was done in defense of a *gasp* Republican!



*(apologies to the good officers in Denver ... all 4 of you )


ahahahhahaha. didnt this guy have something better to do ????

come on.

any way as someone who should be on the side of the complainers,
Arg!
as one person put it, free speech is about ideas.

also, i have the freedom not to have my life invaded by you.
so while i am totally into saying all kinds of horrible things about
Dubya, the SchvartzenYAnkitter, just about everyone driving near my vehicle,

and being a NYer where i was raised on words , well my dad liked bad words for other drivers even more than i do, so the law in Georiga and elswhere makes me nervous, but should little kids really be exposed to these words?

i think it should be up to the parents, not you or me, so plastering, or saying things loud in public, it invades peoples space.

this collecting forum i am on, we cnat swear, they upgraded it to if you type a word that gets censored, youre banned. i never minded, i mean typing how hard is it not to swear.
ANYway= THInk of this=
whatever the word is , picture a very small, very sweet child saying it.

does that seem right?

and how many kids utter their first swear by accident, just repeating what they heard.

people should have more class. F bush doesnt do anything productive.

how about Bush gave me $300 and took away my dad's job?

no swearing!

[CentralTexas]

1- I'm against censorship so this is just food for thought
2-if the FCC can fine for obscenity (for using the 7 words ban rule) on the publics airwaves because it might harm children- then why won't prosecutions of shirts/bumperstickers hold up to court challenges also?
CT

[LaVere]

My young neighbor has a bumper stick that says " Buck Fush"

I just don't let it bother me.

:cuss:

[Bushwhacker]

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"......

[SteveS]

Can't remember the name but the boy peeing?

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."

[R.H. Lee]

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"...... Sheesh. Those are on every third car here. The mojados even have one of the boy peeing on "La Migra". :rolleyes:

[MudPuppy]

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."

[Solo]

Aren't the states bound ot the Constitution?

[Tory]

"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:

[T.Stahl]

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:

[Zach S]

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.

[crt360]

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.

[greyhound]

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....

[HungSquirrel]

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

[jefnvk]

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'?

[Art Eatman]

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

[Zundfolge]

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"

[jefnvk]

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.

[Tory]

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:

[trooper]

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

...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

[The Rabbi]

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

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.

[HungSquirrel]

But that assumes anyone there can actually read it. An iffy proposition.
Alabama state slogan: "At least we ain't Tennessee!" :neener:

[The Rabbi]

Alabama state slogan: "At least we ain't Tennessee!"

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, @#$%^&!"

[cropcirclewalker]

It's a good thing that young Ms. Bates isn't a boy or we'd have a bunch of you censorers calling her, Young Master Bates". Ba dum bum!

How about we grow up? Lets go watch some feminine higeine commercials.

[Art Eatman]

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

[The Rabbi]

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.

[jefnvk]

If foul language is of casual use, how do you escalate when there is occasion to express extreme anger?

Exactly what I have told many people, and what I believe.

[Flyboy]

f*** Bush" is beyond the scope of what I consider acceptable in our society.
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.

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.

[jefnvk]

You don't like the words I use? You think that my behaviour might have a bad influence on minors? Gee, that's tough...

What if I walk up to your family, and just start shouting obscenities as loudly as I can at them? Please note that I am purposely not threatening you, just shouting loud obscenities directly at you? Are you just going to say, 'Oh, too bad for us? He has the right to shout whatever he wants at us?'

As I said in another thread, I believe in the 2nd amendment (not that that needed to be said), but I don't support the right to march around town with an AR loaded with blanks, shooting them off.

[Watcher53]

Myself,

I would weigh in with Trooper and Tory on their analysis.

Protection of rights for ALL.

Now having said that, those kind of bumper stickers or speech just indicate the social impotence those people live with in their minds.

[The Rabbi]

What if I walk up to your family, and just start shouting obscenities as loudly as I can at them? Please note that I am purposely not threatening you, just shouting loud obscenities directly at you? Are you just going to say, 'Oh, too bad for us? He has the right to shout whatever he wants at us?'

I would consider that assault, depending on circumstances. Also depending on circumstances I would have you taken in for observation and possible involuntary admission to a psych facility.

[thorn726]

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

YEs, sure why not. its totally obvious. if it werent, there wouldnt be ratings on movies, or you would be outraged at those also

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.

uh, no . those police were ridiculous.

[SteveS]

Aren't the states bound ot the Constitution?

Parts of the Constitution, yes. The idea that the BOR applies to the states is from the 20th century (dang activist courts). The founding fathers only intended that the BOR limit the power of the federal government. It was up to the individual states in their own constitutions to list the rights they thought were important.

During the early to mid 20th century, the Sup. Ct. used the 14th amendment to apply some provisions of the BOR to state laws and conduct. This was even somewhat of a stretch if you read some of the discussion around the enactment of the 14th amendment.

[The Rabbi]

Well, actually I think it was earlier than that. I also think it was the Supreme Court that made that determination. And the SC's rulings are a lot more authoritative than whatever we think the Founder's intentions may have been.

[Derius_T]

I have also been ridiculed and yelled at for a bumper sticker. I have one that
reads:

"Used Sniper Rifle - $1000.00"
"Trip to Afganistan - $800.00"
"Hotel with Rooftop Access - $100.00"
"Scoring a Headshot on a piece of S**T like Osama Bin Laden - PRICELESS"

Now, Personally, I think the sticker is HILARIOUS. And right after 9/11 when
I put it on, I had TONS of people waving and honking, giving thumbs up,
tailgating me just to read it, stopping me in public to tell me how great it was,
ect. ect. Not 1 negative comment.......

NOW HOWEVER, people see it.....get mad, say it is distasteful, call me
crazy, or gun nut, (well, maybe thats due to the gunrack in my truck)
and get pissed about the SAME STICKER, that everyone loved not so long
ago. So many peoples opinions sway with whats IN or OUT in PUBLIC
opinion............. :rolleyes:

Oh well......sorry.....but its STILL a GREAT STICKER.... :neener:

[Art Eatman]

Dunno why it's necessary, but anyhow: Rabbi, of course the cop was wrong, and my opinion is that laws against smut are wrong.

All I've ever said is that I have a certain amount of contempt for certain public behaviors...

As far as potty language and bumper stickers, I see nothing wrong with a judicious, careful application of spray paint to the text of the "message". :D

But I'm sorta primitive about things like that...Just another one of my character defects.

Art

[DRZinn]

Did anyone else notice that in the very first sentence the paper managed to create the impression that the sticker was attacked because it was derogatory to Bush, rather than because it was profane?

[HungSquirrel]

It was attacked because it was derogatory to Bush. Profane stickers are regularly ignored in many states with laws against them if no one complains vocally enough. Insulting a president for whom many Americans have an unwarranted, fanatical devotion is bound to generate a complaint or two, while a picture of Calvin urinating on the Ford logo is less likely to.

In my case, the word 'Bush' is precisely what caused two complaints and a police visit. After 9/11 people drove around here all the time with bumper stickers that said "F--- Osama and his Mama" and other such colorful metaphors. Nary a complaint. When I drove around with "F--- Bush", I got two complaints and a visit from my university cops. (This was back in my less mature days, mind you!) I asked them why the f--- I couldn't have 'f---' written on my car. They said they had had two complaints. I asked if it was illegal, and they had trouble telling me what the law was on the issue. (I later looked it up.) I asked them if they had ever heard of the First Amendment and the numerous Supreme Court cases protecting all forms of political speech, however unsavory, and they said no to the latter.

Long story short, most people don't care about the F-word unless you put it in front of the name of someone they idolize.

[Shalako]

I'd care if some guy was walking through the mall yelling the F word. (and I'd want the cops to go talk to the guy)

It's the same exact thing to emblazen the word on your bumper.

Confuscianism would say it invades my sphere of influence. I know the BOR wasn't written based on asian philosophy, but going around being disruptive, disrespectful, and exhibiting crude and callous behavior in front of women and children is really low caliber and shows a repressed state of spiritual development.

Our society today thinks freedom means the ability to be as tasteless as you want; in-your-face type stuff. I see it as unrefined and vulgar (aka common).

What ever happened to 'classy' and 'dignified'? Maybe they'll make a comeback some day.

[PATH]

Well it does present an interesting quandry. Heck, in some places it might even get you a poke in the nose.

I believe the word takes its root from the Latin verb "facere" - to make or do. In the Canterbury Tales it is used in the sense of planting a seed. F** the land.

The word has its uses and when used in context of time and place it may be quite appropriate. I think use ot the word shows tasteless behavior but I don't think it illegal.

A question for the SCOTUS and the ages! ;) :D

[The Rabbi]

I know the BOR wasn't written based on asian philosophy, but going around being disruptive, disrespectful, and exhibiting crude and callous behavior in front of women and children is really low caliber and shows a repressed state of spiritual development.

You might be right. But it is not illegal nor is it worthy of LE intimidation. But others, especially in Kali, would say the exact same thing about anyone's "My President Is Charleton Heston" sticker.

[DRZinn]

Profane stickers are regularly ignored in many states with laws against them if no one complains vocally enough. As that one would have been if no-one had complained vocally enough.

[flatrock]

Profane bumper stickers are childish at best. There's no reason that this person couldn't express their feelings about Bush without resorting to profanity.

The bumper sticker does not use the language to explain why the person doesn't like Bush or agree with his policies. It just makes the driver of the car look like a childish idiot with a limited vocabulary.

I don't see why it should be considered protected speech, because not allowing profanity does not inhibit this person from making a coherent statement of dissent.

Civilized societies do have rules to define acceptable standards of conduct. I don't think the restricting this conduct is inhibiting the free speech of that person.

[pax]

Surprising how little respect free speech gets on this board.

I wouldn't put a profane sticker on my car. I don't swear in front of kids (not even in front of my own kids). I agree with Oleg's policy not to allow cussing on THR. However ... well, see my sig.

pax

Take away the right to say "f---" and you take away the right to say "f--- the government." -- Lenny Bruce

[HungSquirrel]

I'm amused at the number of people who are pointing out the vulgarity and childishness of the sticker in question without focusing on the real issue: that political speech may not be censored in the US, even if it has naughty words. SCOTUS has consistently defended the First Amendment's application to political speech where they haven't been consistent on its application to other forms of speech. The BOR has been around a lot longer than we have, and Cohen v. CA a lot longer than most of us have.

[jefnvk]

pax - depends on your definition of free speech. I think the other thread floating around has shown us how no one can agree on free speech. We have on one end treason is protected, and on the other, that anything vulgar isn't allowed.

I think that the main disagreement is not that this lady has the right to say what she hates Bush, but just the manner that she chose to do it.

[HankB]

. . . political speech may not be censored in the US, even if it has naughty words. SCOTUS has consistently defended the First Amendment's application to political speech . . . No they haven't, since SCOTUS upheld the McCain-Feingold First Amendment Repeal Act, also known as Campaign Finance Reform.

[LawDog]

The Constitution guarantees many rights for us. Included in those are Ms. Bates' right to free political speech. Not included in those rights is the right not to be offended.

Ninth Amendment.

Just off-paw, I'd say that the Denver PD sergeant needs a couple of years of desk time to help him get his priorities in order.

LawDog

[ravinraven]

Obviously this 26 year old babe loves Bush. You have to love someone to even consider doing what that ancient polite English society word suggests: to f--- them. She's in love. Don't bug her. I like Bush but not that much.

Maybe she would have been better off if she had the sticker say "Phuque Bush."

rr

[David W. Gay]

"Ban bad words - for the children!"

Good Grief!

So many "it's for the children!" arguments supporting the LEO's actions that it makes me wonder if those folk truly understand "Land of the Free".

"I don't want my child exposed to that kind of language..."
"I don't want my child exposed to guns..."
"I don't want my child exposed to ______"

Tough. They are gonna be exposed to a heck of a lot of stuff weather you like it or not. Get there first, and teach them right from wrong. They may be young, but they are smart. Don't blame the bumper sticker when your kids say a bad word at an inappropriate time.

Dav - a former five year old who knew not to say bad words even if I heard other five year olds say them because my mom told me not to! - id

Dav - I also knew not to EVER touch a gun because both my mom and dad (who were divorced) told me not to, even though neither are anti gun - id

In anycase - Carry On!

[MudPuppy]

So, this freedom of speech amendment is written on the same paper as the right to keep and bear arms.

Just like you can't own (well, without jumping thru hoops) a full auto or a bazooka, you can be restricted from saying the bad words. Or protesting in public without a class and a state permit.

The first amendment states clearly that congress can make no laws--not that Colorado can make no laws.

Now, I know we don't like the thought of that and we've been told "we're the land of the free" for so long we like to believe it--you bet it makes us feel good. However, at the end of the day we get what we are given by the government.

Turn up the heat to fast and the frog jumps out of the boiling water, turn it up slow and he'll sit there, enjoying the cozy water. But, you've never seen a frog protesting or carrying a gun.

[dustind]

Ninth Amendment. Im offended by that, please arrest yourself, just kidding. Seriously, if the right not to be offended actually existed we would all be in jail. Everyone offends millions of people every day, without exception. What about the pro life billboards that have a dead, bloody fetus being held by a hand in a latex glove, or gay couples in public, or interracial couples, those are very offensive to many people.