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.
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.
Last edited:
