U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: A Sheriff Just Threatened Charges Over ‘F*ck Trump’ Sticker — and the Internet Is Destroying Him
Source:
The Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/a-sh ... ernet-is-destroying-him_112017
Published: Nov 16, 2017
Author: Carey Wedler
Post Date: 2017-11-17 06:40:28 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14438
Comments: 107
On Wednesday morning, Sheriff Troy E. Nehls of Fort Bend County, Texas, posted a picture of the back of a truck asking members of the community to help him find the ‘offender.’ “I have received numerous calls regarding the offensive display on this truck as it is often seen along FM 359. If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, I would like to discuss it with you,” he said. Nehls apparently already sought to impose punishment, adding, “Our Prosecutor has informed us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it, but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification to it.” He also posted a picture in the comments of legal code concerning disorderly conduct, apparently attempting to justify his attempt to suppress free speech by suggesting the truck driver was instigating a breach of the peace. The statute, Sec. 42.01, says “a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly uses abusive, indecent, profane or vulgar language, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” or if it “makes an offensive gesture of display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Attempting to cite this statute suggests Trump supporters could be so triggered by free speech about the president they might incite violence, a particularly hilarious notion considering the right has spent months virtue signaling about the first amendment and scolding leftists for being violent snowflakes. And the Internet responded swiftly as thousands of commenters flowed in offering relentless trolling, thoughtful defenses of free speech, and cutting rebukes of partisan hypocrisy. The trolls were numerous: Other commenters were straightforward and to the point, citing previous court decisions and defenses of free speech: Still others tackled partisan hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance: Some commenters defended the sheriff and received immediate responses: A couple pointed out the fact that people actually called the police because they were so offended: The truck driver also received an offer from a lawyer and former prosecutor for free legal assistance: The ACLU of Texas also chimed in: “Sheriff Troy E. Nehls, Constitutional Law 101: You can’t ban speech just because it has ‘f@ck’ in it. “Hey truck owner, feel free to contact the ACLU of Texas.” Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 49.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
If I saw that I wouldn't call the police. I'd take a baseball bat to his truck and let him call the police.
So...you advocate violence against someone whose speech you don't like? You have much in common with Antifa.
I am the violence he's inciting.
You have much in common with Antifa Misterwhite: "I am the violence he's inciting.." Misterwhite is right again. By your rationale and logic, MW's baseball bat across the back windshield is merely also "free speech." Incitement is a criminal offense and a verbal assault in this case. As well as defending the honor of one's wife, mother, daughter, family, friends. Ever hear of the saying, "Them's fighting words"?? What was plastered all over that vehicle was blatant IN YOUR FACE fighting words. The perp not only chose to publicly verbally assault the President, but those who "voted FOR him." Deckard, to what end does this kind of incendiary Antifa baiting and BS end? Nasty, vulgar insults designed to bait and incite can only lead to one conclusion. And THIS is just part of the Left's/Antifa's open season on Trump and those who voted for him. With respect to this case, there are only TWO sides to take. You've chosen poorly.
With respect to this case, there are only TWO sides to take. You've chosen poorly. 'Fighting words' laws are made to stop fights, not authorise them. ---- The idea is that law enforcement could stop offensive displays BEFORE a crazy like whitey took a bat to the other crazy person/display. Not that misterwhite has the real balls to take a bat to anything. -- He's an agitprop ringer, a phony.
Ok... So what's your opinion on shouting "NIGGER!!" to every black person? Or GROUPS of black people?
Ok... So what's your opinion on shouting "NIGGER!!" to every black person? Or GROUPS of black people? OK, --- we have a crazy shouting "NIGGER!!" to every black person, Or a GROUP of black people, as he goes down the street? Hopefully someone calls 911, and the cops arrive before the crazy gets killed by the blacks. Whereupon, the crazy is put in jail for disturbing the peace. If he's assaulted or killed, those responsible face a jury trial, and will no doubt be acquitted, or given reduced sentences/paroled because of the 'fighting words' doctrine. Is there some problem with that?
Is there some problem with that? There IS a problem with normalizing this anti-social anarchy crap and juvenile sociopathic behavior encouraged under the guise of "Free Speech." What we're witnessing is the over-ripened rotten fruit of over a year's worth of Leftist/Anti-MAGA propaganda and indoctrination -- a psyop designed to normalize hostility and violence toward Donald Trump and those who voted for him.
There IS a problem with normalizing this anti-social anarchy crap and juvenile sociopathic behavior encouraged under the guise of "Free Speech." What we're witnessing is the over-ripened rotten fruit of over a year's worth of Leftist/Anti-MAGA propaganda and indoctrination -- a psyop designed to normalize hostility and violence toward Donald Trump and those who voted for him. How weird, you've read my post, and apparently understood it, but still feel the need to lecture me about leftist propaganda? I'm not your enemy. Trying to get you to realize that some here (notably misterwhite), is a propagandist, isn't getting through.. Am I wasting my time?
#51. To: tpaine (#49)
Firstly, I don't believe you or 95% of the posters here are my enemy. I think that's a weird assertion or presumption to make, but hey, it's a nameless, faceless media where intent and subtleties are often misconstrued and misunderstood. What else is new? Beyond that, I'm not "lecturing," I'm clarifying. I apparently should refrain from giving my overview and opinion on the social dynamics and psyops by the PTB (Which does appear for be a waste of time -- a YUGE one. You're right. My bad.)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
I'd take a baseball bat to his truck and let him call the police.
#4. To: Deckard (#3)
So...you advocate violence against someone whose speech you don't like?
#10. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#4)
Deckard: "So...you advocate violence against someone whose speech you don't like?"
#15. To: Liberator (#10)
Ever hear of the saying, "Them's fighting words"?? What was plastered all over that vehicle was blatant IN YOUR FACE fighting words.
#24. To: tpaine (#15)
'Fighting words' laws are made to stop fights, not authorise them. ---- The idea is that law enforcement could stop offensive displays BEFORE a crazy like whitey took a bat to the other crazy person/display.
#36. To: Liberator (#24)
(Edited)
Fighting words' laws are made to stop fights, not authorise them. ---- The idea is that law enforcement could stop offensive displays BEFORE a crazy like whitey took a bat to the other crazy person/display.
#44. To: tpaine, rlkk (#36)
If he's assaulted or killed, those responsible face a jury trial, and will no doubt be acquitted, or given reduced sentences/paroled because of the 'fighting words' doctrine.
#49. To: Liberator (#44)
If he's assaulted or killed, those responsible face a jury trial, and will no doubt be acquitted, or given reduced sentences/paroled because of the 'fighting words' doctrine. Is there some problem with that?
Replies to Comment # 49. I'm not your enemy.... Am I wasting my time?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 49.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]