Women gets ticket for anti Bush bumper sticker

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 17 2006, 12:42 PM) [snapback]334074[/snapback]</div>

Free speech was upheld when the judge threw out the ticket.

Now she is suing for emotional distress.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Oct 18 2006, 05:59 AM) [snapback]334377[/snapback]</div>

I believe that this is also a part of the definition. . .

"it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole"

Wildkow

p.s. Don't forget that "serious" is a key word here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Oct 21 2006, 01:13 PM) [snapback]336114[/snapback]</div>

I forget which movie it was, but the substitutions made for TV-broadcast-censorship were better than the original dialog: I'm gonna blow your melon-farming head off!

Anyway, feel free to be more creative than just a bunch of *'s.

Can you tell I think all this concern over censorship is just nuts? I can't remember if we talked like the South Park kids when I was in the 3rd grade, but certainly by the 5th we did....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Oct 21 2006, 10:13 AM) [snapback]336114[/snapback]</div>

Well, there is a distinct difference with Priuschat.com having a banned words list and the state having one. Priuschat does not have to provide a safe haven for free speech anymore than I have to put up with a child of mine cursing in my home. But the state cannot use its extremly limited power to restrict speech in an arbitrary way, and the system worked well in the case at hand. It sounds like the legislature needs to do its job and amend the law that is unconstitutional, yet still on the books.

The bigger question is the "profiling" aspect of the traffic stop. Police routinely use any excuse to follow behind someone and wait for them to violate some aspect of the traffic laws. The intent is to then trick the person into triggering something that would allow them to search the car.

Its beyond the idea of "racial profiling" that we are sensitive to, as its the way they do most of the "crime catching". A car pulls out of a cheap motel, "known" as a haven for drug dealers. They have no probable cause at that point to pull the car over, but they follow it closely until the driver makes some mistake (turn too wide, license plate dirty, etc.) Then, the cop says "what's that smell? You smoking dope?" and uses the person's reaction or behaviour as probable cause to initiate a search. The gram of cocaine they find could not have smelled like dope, but the arrest is considered valid and the person is charged with the crime.

I think the initial traffic stop was probably part of just such a "profiling", and could be related to the political statement, or because she was in a nice car in a bad neighborhood (or vice versa), a white person in a black neighborhood (or vice versa), or any number of things.