Free speech

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Wed Dec 22 22:19:39 MST 1999

At 07:25 PM 12/22/99 -0800, Pam Charles wrote:

>--- Jim Nantz <jnantz at STUDENT.GC.MARICOPA.EDU> wrote:
>> There is an interesting case shaping up here in the
>> Valley. In the Phoenix suburb of Gilbert a 20 year old woman was
>> arrested recently for disorderly conduct.
>> One day a Gilbert police officer pulled her over for speeding. While
>> writing down her plate number he saw a bumper sticker on her car that
>> said "If it's too loud you're too F*****G old." The cop told her she
>> would have to cover the offending word with tape or remove the sticker.
>> She put tape on it, he gave her a warning for speeding and she left.
>> The next day the cop went to the school where she works and saw that the
tape over the offending word was not there anymore. He arrested her for
>> disorderly conduct.  Now she is suing the city for $300,000.
>> Part of me says that she's a little punk that hasn't grown up yet and
>> needs to be taught a lesson. Another part of me says this is free
>> speech. If they can bust her for the F word, then what else could they
>> arrest her for saying?
>> Also with the crime rate what it is I don't think we can afford to have
>> cops running around checking what people have displayed on their car in
>> the form of a bumper sticker.
>> What do you think?
>Jim, I think society has first a right to require public decency, and
second > an obligation to require it. Frankly, I don't want parents to have
to explain
>the nation's gutterfull of filth-speak to their children, so that
obnoxious, > disrespectful little sociopaths can throw "free speech" in our
faces. That's > not free speech. The Founding Fathers would have had the
little moron > creep in a pillory for language like that, and you know it.
>In society one simply CAN'T say anything one wants anywhere they want, >
and that's a good thing. The atavism, however, of today's "culture" (pardon
> me while laugh) is steadily slouching toward the caves of total freedom:
> anarchy.
>The sneering little attitude case needs her face slapped, the officer
needs > public support, and the judge needs to throw the case into the crapper
>where it belongs.
>Please give the "with the crime rate rate so high" canard a rest, will
you? > The hardened criminal of today was just little disrespectful bastard
a few
>years ago. He was allowed to fester until he became the blight that he is
> today. The cop did right and I applaud him.
>But, if you truly don't mind foulmouths in your (and presumably in your >
friends' and family's) presence, surely won't object to this. My method for
> dealing with the nasty little bitch is called the KITA system. KITA, of >
course, means Kick In The Ass. Use it often, use it with vigor.
>Give the cop a break. He's probably the closest thing to adult supervision
> the little twit has ever had.
>For hobnailed boots, this is Pam

        Well-done, Miss Pam and I salute you! My knee-jerk reaction was to mull
the free speech thing over. However, Pam is dead-right in her potent
analysis. Folks, free speech carries with it a "self-edit" responsibility.
We all know (or should) that you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded building,
or libel another. I've seen websites that recklessly break the libel rule
and when asked, the webmasters reply with "hey, it's freedom of speech."

        Well, it's one thing to say that "group such & such is practicing
pedophilia, or sorcery, or endorses pharmaceutical abuse" (or whatever).
And still quite another to state "politician XYZ should be indicted on
these counts." It's a fine line, sometimes, but if you cannot prove your
ascertions, best to CYA! A slander case can be long and expensive.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list