I dread reading any news from Florida and now this;
"A Florida man was arrested over the weekend for refusing to remove a sticker from his vehicle’s window that crudely described a person’s sexual appetites.
Dillon Shane Webb, 23, was charged with misdemeanor counts of violating Florida’s obscenity law and resisting an officer without violence, a Columbia County Sheriff’s Office report said. The sticker read, “I eat a–,†according to the arrest report obtained by the Lake City Reporter.
When told the reason for the stop, Webb told the deputy, “They’re just words.†Webb told the Associated Press the deputy seemed to be angry from the start of the traffic stop. He said he had the sticker on his truck for less than a week before he was stopped by the deputy.
He told the Associated Press he plans to fight the charges and defend his First Amendment right to free speech.
“I’m tired of police forces thinking they are above the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,†Webb said, adding that he wasn’t aware of the state’s obscenity law. He said he could see why the sticker would be seen as vulgar by some but the law doesn’t really define what that is."
“I’m tired of police forces thinking they are above the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,†Webb said, adding that he wasn’t aware of the state’s obscenity law."
“I’m tired of police forces thinking they are above the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,†Webb said, adding that he wasn’t aware of the state’s obscenity law."
“I’m tired of police forces thinking they are above the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,†Webb said, adding that he wasn’t aware of the state’s obscenity law."
this is hilarious
Is he wrong?
I doubt if this genius ever read the constitution, or can even read… but of course the police should not be above the constitution.
I would like to know situation if Is this covered under Roth vs. US, “To make or distribute obscene materials.”?
“I’m tired of police forces thinking they are above the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,†Webb said, adding that he wasn’t aware of the state’s obscenity law."
this is hilarious
Is he wrong?
I doubt if this genius ever read the constitution, or can even read… but of course the police should not be above the constitution.
I would like to know situation if Is this covered under Roth vs. US, “To make or distribute obscene materials.”?
Maybe, eating ass definitely appeals to the prurient interests.
I’d love to see this go to the SCOTUS so they can debate the social importance of eating ass.
"After issuing the notice to appear, the deputy asked Dillon to remove one of the letters from the word “ass†so the statement would “no longer be derogatory.â€
While the deputy’s request would seem reasonable, you just know if the dude removed a letter someone would still bitch about it. Grammar nazi’s would complain about an incomplete sentence if he removed an ‘s’, “I eat as”. And if he removed the ‘a’, someone would complain he eats Nazi’s, “I eat ss”.
“I’m tired of police forces thinking they are above the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,†Webb said, adding that he wasn’t aware of the state’s obscenity law."
this is hilarious
Is he wrong?
I doubt if this genius ever read the constitution, or can even read… but of course the police should not be above the constitution.
I would like to know situation if Is this covered under Roth vs. US, “To make or distribute obscene materials.”?
Well, the state can regulate speech with reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions. If the guy had a sign like that up inside his house where it couldn’t be seen from the outside, then I can’t imagine the state would ever prevail in an action to make him take it down.
BUT, this may be different. I think the state can regulate the place in order to prevent the speech from being made where people can’t avoid it and/or have a reasonable expectation of not being subjected to it. The imperfect analogy is to point out that we no longer have vans driving around our neighborhoods with loudspeakers blaring a political candidate’s message. Therefore, the state’s argument will/could/should be that keeping a bumper sticker like that off the roads will help protect other drivers from being subjected to what is fairly clearly an obscene statement while those drivers are on the road. I know there are counter examples such as obscene t-shirts, etc., but I think that’s where the state will try to take the case.
I’ve been thinking about this general issue a lot since the relatively recent Supreme Court ruling on the Slants (overgeneralization: federal trademark registration can’t be withheld on the basis of the applied-for mark’s offensiveness). Specifically, I’ve been considering how that ruling will affect state DMVs’ policies against offensive license plates. A friend of mine who’s a BigLaw IP lawyer also thinks the time, place, and manner restrictions is where the DMVs will hang their hat.
Show me how many times those police have pulled over someone with the dangling balls bumper. What about the naked lady silhouette on every semi truck tire flap? what about stickers that say “F@ck Trump” or any other politician?
Show me how many times those police have pulled over someone with the dangling balls bumper. What about the naked lady silhouette on every semi truck tire flap? what about stickers that say “F@ck Trump” or any other politician?
You point is well taken. If we allow one word we need to allow them all, don’t we? That’s what I meant by the topic, I don’t want children seeing shit meant for adults, but I think this kind of case could open the door to an all or nothing ruling. Using your examples above can the SCOTUS tell us which of those words should not be seen in public places on US soil? I don’t think so. And community standards is so meaningless. And we can’t have cops acting as Freedom of Speech police.
Show me how many times those police have pulled over someone with the dangling balls bumper. What about the naked lady silhouette on every semi truck tire flap? what about stickers that say “F@ck Trump” or any other politician?
Agreed.
The only thing is, people have to realize there can be consequences for their shitty speech or opinions outside of the legal system.
If I had someone I knew with a “F&ck Trump” sticker or dangling balls on their vehicle…they’d not be allowed to park at my house or anywhere near where my kids would see.
A friend of ours utilized their rights to talk all nasty and perverse (in our opinion) on a halloween walk with kids about their liberal views about all kinds of orientation and women’s bodily topics. We went on ahead, they weren’t ever invited back.
Their opinions.
I think the stuff in public on a vehicle though is tough as it does border on the “loudspeaker in your neighborhood” a bit. You’ve got kids that can read, I don’t want them reading a “F&ck Trump” bumper sticker.
