U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: State agency agrees free speech includes 'the finger'
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=250697
Published: Jan 13, 2011
Author: Bob Unruh
Post Date: 2011-01-15 18:58:35 by Mad Dog
Keywords: None
Views: 10177
Comments: 17
Pennsylvania residents and visitors now are free to express themselves with "profane or offensive words or gestures" to others and law-enforcement officers without getting a ticket, according to a legal settlement.
The result was announced by the Pennsylvania office of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued over a ticket issued to an upset woman who yelled "a--hole" at a motorcyclist who swerved at her.
"This will affect millions of Pennsylvanians for whom the state police provide the only law enforcement," said ACLU attorney Mary Roper. "Besides being a waste of police resources, these types of citations are often used by police to 'punish' people who argue with them."
But columnist Robert Knight, a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, questioned whether the result really is an advance for society.
"Thanks to the ACLU of Pennsylvania, motorists in that state will be free to swear at and give the finger to police officers and other motorists, thus lowering public decency another notch," he wrote. "Meanwhile, the officers themselves will be forced to undergo 'training' on the 'right' to flip people off.
(Story continues below)
"The outcome will alleviate the apparently ongoing shortage of rude public behavior in the Keystone State," he said.
The case stemmed from a ticket issued to Lona Scarpa. It was in 2008 when she and a friend were walking and a motorcyclist who knew them drove past and swerved close as if to hit them. The driver shouted an insult.
The ACLU said Scarpa responded by calling the motorcyclist an "a--hole." When she reported the incident to the Pennsylvania State Police, the trooper mailed the motorcyclist a ticket and also cited Scarpa for disorderly conduct with a penalty of as much as 90 days in jail for her language.
A magistrate later dismissed the charge, and the lawsuit against the police agency followed.
Now, according to the settlement, "No later than 30 days after the execution of this agreement, defendants' employer, the Pennsylvania State Police, will notify each of its troopers through per capita postmaster notice to all members and also by Command Staff Advisory to supervisors that troopers may not issue citations for the use of profane or offensive words or gestures, whether those words or gestures are directed at law-enforcement personnel or at a member of the public. Counsel for the defendants shall provide plaintiff's counsel with written confirmation that this notice has been provided and date and means by which it was provided."
When Roper admitted such actions "may not be very smart," Knight agreed.
"No, it's not smart," he wrote. "The Bible offers this good advice: 'A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger' (Proverbs 15:1)."
He continued, "The idea that abusive speech or gestures would have constitutional protection would have been news to the founding father of the nation. George Washington, as a very young man, wrote this in his book 'Rules of Civility' at a time when people were put in public stocks for such behavior:
"'Use no reproachful language against anyone, neither curse nor revile.'
"That was rule No. 49. The very first rule was: 'Every action done in company ought to be done with some sign of respect to those that are present,'" Knight wrote.
The Pennsylvania legal settlement requires the state agency pay damages and legal fees of some $17,500 and: Provide "additional training to all troopers and cadets on the First Amendment rights of an individual to expression by profane language or gestures and that members of the public may not be cited solely for the use of profane words or gestures, even when directed at law- enforcement officers";
Develop a mandatory training update for new and continuing state law-enforcement officers;
Incorporate the agreement into academy and in-service training;
Revise training materials;
And have supervisors for two years review all citations.
The ACLU announcement said it's important that officers understand "you can't charge someone for sending a message just because it includes profanity."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
The ACLU announcement said it's important that officers understand "you can't charge someone for sending a message just because it includes profanity."
Unless of course, that it's a libTURD that you offend.
Then you are committing a "violent hate crime" right? /S
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
#2. To: Mad Dog (#0)
But columnist Robert Knight, a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, questioned whether the result really is an advance for society."The outcome will alleviate the apparently ongoing shortage of rude public behavior in the Keystone State," he said.
An advance for society? Upholding the Constitutional right to freedom of speech is a bad thing to this idiot. Proves his 'agenda'.
Sarcasm will get you no where, statist.
(I'm flipping you off right now.)
Your tag line is stupid.
#3. To: We The People (#2)
"An advance for society? Upholding the Constitutional right to freedom of speech is a bad thing to this idiot. Proves his 'agenda'."
Exactamundo!
We serfs are supposed to be bovine placid and manageable. /S
What do we think we are?
Free individuals?
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
#4. To: We The People, Mad Dog (#2)
An advance for society? Upholding the Constitutional right to freedom of speech is a bad thing to this idiot. Proves his 'agenda'.
Does this decision mean the cops can flip us off and use foul and abusive language with impunity?
#5. To: Ibluafartsky, We The People (#4)
LOL!
If they aren't on duty, in uniform or not, I don't see why not?
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
#6. To: Mad Dog (#5)
If they aren't on duty, in uniform or not, I don't see why not?
Why would the uniform or being on duty restrict the cops right to freedom of speech and expression? I can see this decision being a real PIA for everyone.
#7. To: Ibluafartsky (#6)
I think that uniformed/active duty people have agency and union rules that define their actions and behavior? LEOs must do as their agreements with their employing agency define already?
Those would certainly forbid this behavior on their position as the officers of the PEACE?
I could be wrong, who the hell knows? (In case you hadn't noticed already, this world is NUTS, ANYTHING can and does happen).
We could just make a LAW that if a person repeatedly did such things to a LEO that that LEO could break, (not shatter,cut,smash,... just a single, simple, break, we could issue them calibrated machines designed to break the offending member)?
;^)
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
#8. To: Mad Dog (#0)
George Washington, as a very young man, wrote this in his book 'Rules of Civility' at a time when people were put in public stocks for such behavior:"'Use no reproachful language against anyone, neither curse nor revile.'
Written before progressives and neocons were invented.
The book was advice, and was never intended to be law.
#9. To: Ibluafartsky (#4)
Does this decision mean the cops can flip us off and use foul and abusive language with impunity?
Sure, why not?
As long as they are American citizens with the Constitutionally affirmed right to freedom of speech and they aren't on the job.
I would get fired if I exhibited this behavior on the job. I would assume other employers have similar policies.
Your tag line is stupid.
#10. To: Mad Dog (#5)
If they aren't on duty, in uniform or not, I don't see why not?
Me either. :o)
I'm pretty thick skinned.
Your tag line is stupid.
#11. To: Ibluafartsky (#6)
I can see this decision being a real PIA for everyone.
Freedom isn't easy, but it's worth it.
Your tag line is stupid.
#12. To: We The People (#9)
As long as they are American citizens with the Constitutionally affirmed right to freedom of speech and they aren't on the job.
So what you are stating is that a job can restrict an American citizens Constitutionally affirmed right to freedom of speech and expression.
#13. To: Ibluafartsky (#12)
So what you are stating is that a job can restrict an American citizens Constitutionally affirmed right to freedom of speech and expression.
No, I'm not saying that at all. Only Congress can violate your constitutionally affirmed right to freedom of speech.
I can't violate yours, and you can't violate mine, because neither you nor I can 'make a law' that infringes on that right.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,....
Employers have every right to expect their employees to adhere to a code of conduct. If that code of conduct seems too extreme, then the employee has the choice of whether or not to continue in the job or to seek employment elsewhere.
Your tag line is stupid.
#14. To: We The People (#13)
Employers have every right to expect their employees to adhere to a code of conduct.
Do you believe that someone yelling profanities in public places shouldn't be held responsible?
#15. To: Ibluafartsky (#14)
Do you believe that someone yelling profanities in public places shouldn't be held responsible?
If it's on private property, the property owner can ask the person to leave.
If it's in public, in America, and committed by an American citizen with the right to freedom of speech, he's simply exercising his right.
Of course, if it puts the public in danger, as in yelling fire in a crowded theater, then that's another story. And there are numerous public nuisance laws.
Another citizens right to throw a punch ends at my face but sticks and stones...
Your tag line is stupid.
#16. To: We The People (#15)
there are numerous public nuisance laws
I believe screaming profanities in public place would be covered by those. So indeed there are limits to freedom of speech and expression.
#17. To: Ibluafartsky (#16)
Could be, but not in Pennsylvania.
Ever gone through Chicago or New York? If they ticketed everyone that screamed profanities in those cities, they'd be able to do nothing else.
Your tag line is stupid.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]