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

[Yousaidwhat]

HALP! I'm being provoked by bumper sticker!

I suggest not peeling it off slowly next time, but to pull it swiftly so that it is less painful.

 

[Zander]

Seems to me that she got exactly what she wanted. She was hoping to be confronted and she was.

Lesson? Don't go provoking other people when you have outstanding warrants!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Seems to me that she got exactly what she wanted. She was hoping to be confronted and she was.

Lesson? Don't go provoking other people when you have outstanding warrants!

Yeah that was dumb.

 

[mdk]

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?

Bumper stickers are tacky.

Pretty much. I have three window decals, but they are all sports related.

 

[Peach]

It's tacky, but it's a free speech issue. You have bigger problems if a bumper sticker can provoke you to violent encounters.

I remembered, one can chant "F--- the police" on their porch, all day, not a crime. If it incites someone, then an arrest.

 

[Yarddog]

This is about partisan politics and the very thing the First Amendment was intended to prevent – government using its prosecutorial authority to discourage political dissent and to punish political opponents.

The bumper sticker is speech clearly entitled to Constitutional protections, whether Trump supporters like it or not.

really? its punishing your political opponent by telling them its not nice to say Fuck You to everybody? thats a truck load of crap. I would feel the same way if the sticker had Obamas name or Hillary's. But really, this is just a local public nuisance issue and local authorities have a right to enforce what they think is a public nuisance once they receive complaints from citizens. Unless you'd like to see a Federal police force out there protecting the right to express your profanity. Hey the woman probably would have never got called on it if it was just a normal sized bumper sticker, but she made it big so she could get a reaction. Guess what, she got what she wanted.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's tacky, but it's a free speech issue. You have bigger problems if a bumper sticker can provoke you to violent encounters.

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.

Well then how about the nation shut trump up as I am tired of hearing his sick persona.

Take the nearest exit. Delta is ready when you are!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Needless to say, if the same bumper sticker was being displayed saying the same thing with the exact same words, except referring to Clinton, there’d be no issue, and no threat of prosecution.

 

[emilynghiem]

^^^ Amen to this. If she can't deal with everyone having freedom of speech, perhaps a message like this one shouldn't go up until she can.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Hi Holly JOSweetHeart
I don't think she was protesting other people sharing their opinions too by free speech.
She just didn't think the govt could tell her to take it off or tone it down.

Other people could TELL her they wanted it changed or removed.
But nobody could MAKE her do it, that's different from free speech.

I do agree that with multiple independent complaints,
that is a sign of disorderly conduct creating protests.

This would be the equivalent of several people in a restaurant
complaining about a loud patron, and the patron arguing for the
right to be loud because they have free speech, and the people
all voice their opinions and don't agree.

So to solve the problem, the manager finds some other unrelated
issue, like noticing the loud patron parked in a handicapped zone,
asks them to move the car, and gets the person to leave for this unrelated reason.

It still doesn't solve the original conflict with one person claiming the right to
free speech and others the right to complain by their free speech.

Normally the manager would remove the minimum number of people
to break up the argument. But they would all still claim the right to free speech.
It would just get so loud the manager would have to move the discussion
or the people some place else to fix it later, but not where it's disruptive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I don't think the First Amendment protects insulting language. That doesn't mean insulting language should always be considered unlawful either.

There's a balance with such things, and I don't think having "fuck" on the back of a truck that goes onto public highways should be protected, therefore it can be banned where appropriate.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's tacky, but it's a free speech issue. You have bigger problems if a bumper sticker can provoke you to violent encounters.

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.

Well then how about the nation shut trump up as I am tired of hearing his sick persona.

Dear Tax Man the best way to shut people up
is to find some point where you can honestly say
"Yes, you're right"

When you find where you AGREE with someone
on one point or one part of a plan, then working
on that common ground will either lead to positive
constructive relations and focus, or will "shut people
up or down" if they are not serious and you are calling them
on it with "reverse psychology" by "giving them what they want."

Just do this SINCERELY and find where you REALLY agree on something, and it works.

EX: finding out that Green progressive Sanders supporters who believe
in worker owned cooperatives ACTUALLY WOULD AGREE with
conservative like Sean Hannity arguing for health care coops.
And Obama and Ben Carson BOTH AGREE That microlending
and business training/education would be the more effective
sustainable way to end dependence on welfare handouts
and promote self-reliance and liberation from poverty and economic problems.

If you stick with points of AGREEMENT again
either people are SERIOUS and will WORK on common solutions
or they will STFU if they are just complaining and don't care to follow up on any real solutions
to the problems they just want to blame on someone else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's tacky, but it's a free speech issue. You have bigger problems if a bumper sticker can provoke you to violent encounters.

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.

Well then how about the nation shut trump up as I am tired of hearing his sick persona.

Dear Tax Man the best way to shut people up
is to find some point where you can honestly say
"Yes, you're right"

When you find where you AGREE with someone
on one point or one part of a plan, then working
on that common ground will either lead to positive
constructive relations and focus, or will "shut people
up or down" if they are not serious and you are calling them
on it with "reverse psychology" by "giving them what they want."

Just do this SINCERELY and find where you REALLY agree on something, and it works.

EX: finding out that Green progressive Sanders supporters who believe
in worker owned cooperatives ACTUALLY WOULD AGREE with
conservative like Sean Hannity arguing for health care coops.
And Obama and Ben Carson BOTH AGREE That microlending
and business training/education would be the more effective
sustainable way to end dependence on welfare handouts
and promote self-reliance and liberation from poverty and economic problems.

If you stick with points of AGREEMENT again
either people are SERIOUS and will WORK on common solutions
or they will STFU if they are just complaining and don't care to follow up on any real solutions
to the problems they just want to blame on someone else.

Yes, you have $10 million and I want $10 million, so let's come to a compromise, you give me half of what you have, $5 million and I'll give you half of what I have $0 and everyone's happy.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's tacky, but it's a free speech issue. You have bigger problems if a bumper sticker can provoke you to violent encounters.

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.

Well then how about the nation shut trump up as I am tired of hearing his sick persona.

Dear Tax Man the best way to shut people up
is to find some point where you can honestly say
"Yes, you're right"

When you find where you AGREE with someone
on one point or one part of a plan, then working
on that common ground will either lead to positive
constructive relations and focus, or will "shut people
up or down" if they are not serious and you are calling them
on it with "reverse psychology" by "giving them what they want."

Just do this SINCERELY and find where you REALLY agree on something, and it works.

EX: finding out that Green progressive Sanders supporters who believe
in worker owned cooperatives ACTUALLY WOULD AGREE with
conservative like Sean Hannity arguing for health care coops.
And Obama and Ben Carson BOTH AGREE That microlending
and business training/education would be the more effective
sustainable way to end dependence on welfare handouts
and promote self-reliance and liberation from poverty and economic problems.

If you stick with points of AGREEMENT again
either people are SERIOUS and will WORK on common solutions
or they will STFU if they are just complaining and don't care to follow up on any real solutions
to the problems they just want to blame on someone else.

Yes, you have $10 million and I want $10 million, so let's come to a compromise, you give me half of what you have, $5 million and I'll give you half of what I have $0 and everyone's happy.

Well frigidweirdo close
but to get me to agree equally:
let's both agree to raise 10 million for good causes,
such as let's raise 10 million to set up conflict resolution between
parties to resolve political beliefs per issue.

Then you and I both raise 5 million each.
If we set a goal or make a bet or contest
such as: whoever raises 5 million first, or whoever wins the bet,
that person's 5 million goes to the other person's cause.

I offered to make bets such as
betting that the factor of "forgiveness" can be proven as
the key to spiritual healing methods that can be demonstrated as natural, voluntary,
safe and effective by medical research
and that by applying this to conflict resolution,
theists and nontheists can form an agreement
that "Christ Jesus" means "restorative justice" or "peace and justice"
or "equal justice under law" to stop fighting over secular vs religious approaches to justice.

Or that we can reach an agreement between parties
to recognize equal "political beliefs" and quit fighting
over beliefs about health care, gun and voting rights, marriage etc
by treating these as beliefs and letting party members invest
their taxes into the progrms of their choice instead of imposing or interfering with each other.

FW since you seem quite capable of facilitating and communicating
points of agreement vs disagreement
would you liek to try setting up a 10 million dollar bet or challenge?
Let's pick a goal, I will challenge you,
and we can both try raising 5 million each!

Then depending what the bet or goal is, sure
I will agree to bet you where the money could
go all to your fund or all to mine, whoever wins, as long as it
is set up where everyone is going to win anyway, I see no problem
making it a friendly fun bet or challenge to promote a good cause!

Thanks FW

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's tacky, but it's a free speech issue. You have bigger problems if a bumper sticker can provoke you to violent encounters.

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.

Well then how about the nation shut trump up as I am tired of hearing his sick persona.

Dear Tax Man the best way to shut people up
is to find some point where you can honestly say
"Yes, you're right"

When you find where you AGREE with someone
on one point or one part of a plan, then working
on that common ground will either lead to positive
constructive relations and focus, or will "shut people
up or down" if they are not serious and you are calling them
on it with "reverse psychology" by "giving them what they want."

Just do this SINCERELY and find where you REALLY agree on something, and it works.

EX: finding out that Green progressive Sanders supporters who believe
in worker owned cooperatives ACTUALLY WOULD AGREE with
conservative like Sean Hannity arguing for health care coops.
And Obama and Ben Carson BOTH AGREE That microlending
and business training/education would be the more effective
sustainable way to end dependence on welfare handouts
and promote self-reliance and liberation from poverty and economic problems.

If you stick with points of AGREEMENT again
either people are SERIOUS and will WORK on common solutions
or they will STFU if they are just complaining and don't care to follow up on any real solutions
to the problems they just want to blame on someone else.

Yes, you have $10 million and I want $10 million, so let's come to a compromise, you give me half of what you have, $5 million and I'll give you half of what I have $0 and everyone's happy.

Well frigidweirdo close
but to get me to agree equally:
let's both agree to raise 10 million for good causes,
such as let's raise 10 million to set up conflict resolution between
parties to resolve political beliefs per issue.

Then you and I both raise 5 million each.
If we set a goal or make a bet or contest
such as: whoever raises 5 million first, or whoever wins the bet,
that person's 5 million goes to the other person's cause.

I offered to make bets such as
betting that the factor of "forgiveness" can be proven as
the key to spiritual healing methods that can be demonstrated as natural, voluntary,
safe and effective by medical research
and that by applying this to conflict resolution,
theists and nontheists can form an agreement
that "Christ Jesus" means "restorative justice" or "peace and justice"
or "equal justice under law" to stop fighting over secular vs religious approaches to justice.

Or that we can reach an agreement between parties
to recognize equal "political beliefs" and quit fighting
over beliefs about health care, gun and voting rights, marriage etc
by treating these as beliefs and letting party members invest
their taxes into the progrms of their choice instead of imposing or interfering with each other.

FW since you seem quite capable of facilitating and communicating
points of agreement vs disagreement
would you liek to try setting up a 10 million dollar bet or challenge?
Let's pick a goal, I will challenge you,
and we can both try raising 5 million each!

Then depending what the bet or goal is, sure
I will agree to bet you where the money could
go all to your fund or all to mine, whoever wins, as long as it
is set up where everyone is going to win anyway, I see no problem
making it a friendly fun bet or challenge to promote a good cause!

Thanks FW

But that's not really what you're saying, is it? You have an analogy that doesn't work with what you actually expect of people.

 

[Moonglow]

My bumper stick would be as follows: Fuckem if they can't take a joke..

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Perhaps C_Clayton_Jones
(1) if it was on a T Shirt or sticker in a fixed setting or environment
like a school, or courtroom as in the CA case.

However, in moving traffic in a place like the Houston area
where there have been shootings and road rage fights turned deadly,
there is more at risk here.

(2) if the wording didn't involve an obscenity not allowed
in ADVERTISING or in BROADCAST

C_Clayton_Jones do you think that political protest signs
that say F TRUMP can be broadcast on the TV news???

Do you think people can buy airtime to say the F WORD
as part of political campaigning or protests?

That's why Madonna's speech was censored on most media sources,
and I only heard the F word on public radio with the full uninterrupted recording.

When people report complaints in a set zone
such as over a billboard or a T shirt that only affects that community,
that can be resolved more directly.

But here the exposure to the OBSCENE F word was in a broader
uncontrolled context where children could also see and read it.

Sorry C_Clayton_Jones
perhaps you would be right if the F word
wasn't so BIG and obvious. People have gotten
away with the F bomb in broadcasts where it gets past people.
But if there are COMPLAINTS then it's a different story!!!

 

[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.

Well then how about the nation shut trump up as I am tired of hearing his sick persona.

Dear Tax Man the best way to shut people up
is to find some point where you can honestly say
"Yes, you're right"

When you find where you AGREE with someone
on one point or one part of a plan, then working
on that common ground will either lead to positive
constructive relations and focus, or will "shut people
up or down" if they are not serious and you are calling them
on it with "reverse psychology" by "giving them what they want."

Just do this SINCERELY and find where you REALLY agree on something, and it works.

EX: finding out that Green progressive Sanders supporters who believe
in worker owned cooperatives ACTUALLY WOULD AGREE with
conservative like Sean Hannity arguing for health care coops.
And Obama and Ben Carson BOTH AGREE That microlending
and business training/education would be the more effective
sustainable way to end dependence on welfare handouts
and promote self-reliance and liberation from poverty and economic problems.

If you stick with points of AGREEMENT again
either people are SERIOUS and will WORK on common solutions
or they will STFU if they are just complaining and don't care to follow up on any real solutions
to the problems they just want to blame on someone else.

Yes, you have $10 million and I want $10 million, so let's come to a compromise, you give me half of what you have, $5 million and I'll give you half of what I have $0 and everyone's happy.

Well frigidweirdo close
but to get me to agree equally:
let's both agree to raise 10 million for good causes,
such as let's raise 10 million to set up conflict resolution between
parties to resolve political beliefs per issue.

Then you and I both raise 5 million each.
If we set a goal or make a bet or contest
such as: whoever raises 5 million first, or whoever wins the bet,
that person's 5 million goes to the other person's cause.

I offered to make bets such as
betting that the factor of "forgiveness" can be proven as
the key to spiritual healing methods that can be demonstrated as natural, voluntary,
safe and effective by medical research
and that by applying this to conflict resolution,
theists and nontheists can form an agreement
that "Christ Jesus" means "restorative justice" or "peace and justice"
or "equal justice under law" to stop fighting over secular vs religious approaches to justice.

Or that we can reach an agreement between parties
to recognize equal "political beliefs" and quit fighting
over beliefs about health care, gun and voting rights, marriage etc
by treating these as beliefs and letting party members invest
their taxes into the progrms of their choice instead of imposing or interfering with each other.

FW since you seem quite capable of facilitating and communicating
points of agreement vs disagreement
would you liek to try setting up a 10 million dollar bet or challenge?
Let's pick a goal, I will challenge you,
and we can both try raising 5 million each!

Then depending what the bet or goal is, sure
I will agree to bet you where the money could
go all to your fund or all to mine, whoever wins, as long as it
is set up where everyone is going to win anyway, I see no problem
making it a friendly fun bet or challenge to promote a good cause!

Thanks FW

But that's not really what you're saying, is it? You have an analogy that doesn't work with what you actually expect of people.

What analogy are you saying doesn't work? frigidweirdo

What I expect of people is to follow their own beliefs in finding solutions that
fit their agenda and what they will agree to invest in as solving their problems.

What are you saying doesn't work toward that goal?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

But if there are COMPLAINTS then it's a different story!!!

If I fucking want to say Fuck Trump I say it... I can plaster my car with FUCK TRUMP stickers Carry a weapon and if some Trump fruitcake gets in my face ...no problemo

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Seems to me that she got exactly what she wanted. She was hoping to be confronted and she was.

Lesson? Don't go provoking other people when you have outstanding warrants!

don't go provoking red neck Texas Police Nanny Government asshole ids what you meant