If only it worked that way...if only.Kuchinawa212 said:*faceplam*
I can't even believe this. I really can't. Maybe if I don't think it happened it'll go away
If only it worked that way...if only.Kuchinawa212 said:*faceplam*
I can't even believe this. I really can't. Maybe if I don't think it happened it'll go away
OK law aside. Why did he do this? This is like the lady that got 14 abortions (im not kidding)-Pod- said:Well now you're confusing two different things. There is a difference between quietly extending a middle finger and grabbing a megaphone and shouting obscenities.CommyGingerbreadMan said:Yes it does, it means basically, I could go outside your house EVERDAY with a megaphone and yell obscenities at your family. Then I could claim freedom of speech. Forget disturbing the peace, because I was excersising my freedom of speech.-Pod- said:Why so dramatic? Why would all hell break loose? Anyone who thinks that is way off base. I should have the right to flip off whoever i want to. A Cop cuts me off i should be well within my rights to flip him the bird?CommyGingerbreadMan said:If he wins ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE. I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is Nice, but I wish everyday these people would THINK about what their doing. Do this in China, to an official. chances are we would NEVER know about it. He deserves to lose.-Pod- said:Its easy to quickly jump to the officers side because the guy was being a dick, but that does not mean the officer had the legal right to issue a ticket for this.
This should be interesting and i hope the guy wins.
You hope this guy wins because it favors freedom of speech, I hope it looses because, frankly, im sick of people doing this. He is most likely not in for this, but aggressive driving. And I hope to the universe he pays.
flipping off cops does not = end of society as we know it.
Things like this can open a Can of worms
Ones disturbing the peace and one is a not. However, thats why cases such as these go to federal court to determine just that.
I'm not well versed in constitutional law so i'll leave it at that, my point is that this guy actually does have a case, and i actually do agree with him.
AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHGhonzor said:If only it worked that way...if only.Kuchinawa212 said:*faceplam*
I can't even believe this. I really can't. Maybe if I don't think it happened it'll go away
We don't all know because we don't all live in America, don't assume everyone follows the same code/constitution.Douk said:I don't see what the big deal is. The fat man didn't do anything wrong, the cop was being a dick. The cop shouldn't have given him a ticket because he was well within his rights. The first amendment as we all knows clearly states that you can insult anyone of authority as much as you want and they have to sit there and agree.
Good to hear mate, while the system and some people in it are in question (aka corruption), its good to know some people are putting their lives on the line for the rest of us (even those that are ungrateful).Lucas_90 said:This is comforting. I'll be heading into the AFP (Aust. Fed Police) later this year, and it's nice to know that, for all the shit I'll put up with, that there are alot of sensible people who understand. Thanks guys.
Yeah I seem to recall in Washington at least you can get fined for doing this kind of thing.maddawg IAJI said:Uh no....you disrespected an officer. That will get you tickets in most cases. And maybe he should take his own advice and learn from his mistakes instead of dragging this out.
ThisHutchy_Bear said:He deserves those tickets and then should be charged with wasting police time, the stupid penis.
The_root_of_all_evil said:Freedom of Speech/Expression is negated by Breaking the Laws of the Land, to whit, using inflammatory gestures to an Officer of the Law.
I'd give him a third one for using non-authorized hand signals while driving.
As an addition, Freedom of Speech isn't blocked by the Slander laws, despite it abridging the freedom of speech. Equally, you have the Right To Silence.^=ash=^ said:1st Ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While there are restrictions on free speech, more recent Supreme Court decisions have ruled that free speech includes other forms of expression, including inflammatory gestures. Read up on Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman. The cases are about flag burning in particular, but the justices' statements set a precedent for these kinds of situations.ace_of_something said:Intentionally inflammatory gestures and statements are NOT covered by free speech.