Racist Cop or Racist Prof?
07-29-2009, 12:27 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
From this article: America the Great ... Police State, by Gore Vidal:
But the true meaning of the mess in Cambridge has been carefully avoided by a media incapable of getting the point to anything if they can excitingly change the subject to something else. So here we now have a cast of characters that includes the president himself, a distinguished scholar and a feckless young policeman who on the radio said, when asked why he had behaved so rudely to the “old” scholar, he said because the old guy had been rude about his mother. I haven’t heard this excuse since the playground of St. Alban’s in 1935.
07-29-2009, 12:31 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Federal appeals court judge Alex Kozinski:
It would seem that federal judges don't agree with you, IX. 
Defendant relies heavily on the fact that Duran was making obscene gestures toward him and yelling profanities in Spanish while traveling along a rural Arizona highway. We cannot, of course, condone Duran’s conduct; it was boorish, crass and, initially at least, unjustified. Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran’s behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime.
[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…
The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…
Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…
No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.
[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…
The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…
Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…
No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.
07-29-2009, 12:50 PM
#48
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Missing from the record here is any legitimate, articulate reason for Aguilar to have detained Duran. There was no evidence of a danger to public safety, and Aguilar was not executing a warrant. Nor is there any evidence that Duran was in possession of a controlled substance or had been or was about to be engaged in criminal activity...
...Aguilar further contends that, even if Duran's verbal conduct was otherwise protected, he believed that it constituted disorderly conduct or a disturbing of the peace. However, because the car was traveling late at night on a deserted road on the outskirts of town, Duran's conduct could not have disturbed the peace or incited a riot; Aguilar has presented no evidence showing that it could have
...Aguilar further contends that, even if Duran's verbal conduct was otherwise protected, he believed that it constituted disorderly conduct or a disturbing of the peace. However, because the car was traveling late at night on a deserted road on the outskirts of town, Duran's conduct could not have disturbed the peace or incited a riot; Aguilar has presented no evidence showing that it could have
07-29-2009, 02:14 PM
#51
If I'm wrong on anything, it's of not making myself clear enough.
What you're doing is taking my statement out of context and taking it to the extreme so that you can misrepresent what I said, and what I meant.
The entire discussion in this thread about what Gates said to the officer has been based on the fact that he insulted the officer, which is not a crime. My statement was written within the context of that discussion, and as such it should have been implied that I did not mean it to include threatening to kill someone.
Regardless of all that, I told you what I meant, after you either purposely or genuinely "misunderstood" my statement.
And now this has become an argument of semantics, which I hate participating in. I'm only writing this response to clarify exactly what I meant.
I know that this is the politics forum and things get heated; I've posted enough in here to know that. But your slinging of names is not criticism, it is an ad hominem attack.
I have no problem having a beer with you, or anyone here, but leave the insults out of our interactions. Things can get heated without being an *******. I think we're all adult enough to be able to do that, right?
What you're doing is taking my statement out of context and taking it to the extreme so that you can misrepresent what I said, and what I meant.
The entire discussion in this thread about what Gates said to the officer has been based on the fact that he insulted the officer, which is not a crime. My statement was written within the context of that discussion, and as such it should have been implied that I did not mean it to include threatening to kill someone.
Regardless of all that, I told you what I meant, after you either purposely or genuinely "misunderstood" my statement.
And now this has become an argument of semantics, which I hate participating in. I'm only writing this response to clarify exactly what I meant.
I know that this is the politics forum and things get heated; I've posted enough in here to know that. But your slinging of names is not criticism, it is an ad hominem attack.
I have no problem having a beer with you, or anyone here, but leave the insults out of our interactions. Things can get heated without being an *******. I think we're all adult enough to be able to do that, right?
the seocnd part ******** = a hole?
and agreed
07-29-2009, 02:34 PM
#52
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
Federal appeals court judge Alex Kozinski:
It would seem that federal judges don't agree with you, IX.
It would seem that federal judges don't agree with you, IX.
Incitement Test See:
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Hess v. Indiana (1973)
Rice v. Paladin Press (1997)
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
But more importantly see:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as it directly applies to this very situation.
Chaplinsky was convicted for swearing at a police officer. Justice Murphy's ruling states that lewdness, obscenity, libel, profanity, and "fighting words" are unprotected expression because “such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
It would seem you dont know very much about Federal Judges.
07-29-2009, 03:01 PM
#55
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Cohen v. California
Overturned
Edwards v. South Carolina
Overturned
Schenck v. US
Upheld
But he was a ****ing Socialist, so he deserved it!
Overturned
The Court, by a vote of 5-4, per Justice John Marshall Harlan II, overturned the appellate court's ruling. "[A]bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions," it said, "the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."
In the opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."
Harlan’s arguments can be constructed in three major points: First, states (California) cannot censor their citizens in order to make a “civil” society. Second, knowing where to draw the line between harmless heightened emotion and vulgarity can be difficult. Thirdly, people bring passion to politics and vulgarity is simply a side effect of a free exchange of ideas—no matter how radical they may be.
In the opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."
Harlan’s arguments can be constructed in three major points: First, states (California) cannot censor their citizens in order to make a “civil” society. Second, knowing where to draw the line between harmless heightened emotion and vulgarity can be difficult. Thirdly, people bring passion to politics and vulgarity is simply a side effect of a free exchange of ideas—no matter how radical they may be.
Overturned
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government officials to force a crowd to disperse when they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house.
Upheld
The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.
07-29-2009, 04:29 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
07-29-2009, 04:58 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Thats up for debate, i'd like to hear the actual recordings.
Incitement Test See:
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Hess v. Indiana (1973)
Rice v. Paladin Press (1997)
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
But more importantly see:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as it directly applies to this very situation.
Chaplinsky was convicted for swearing at a police officer. Justice Murphy's ruling states that lewdness, obscenity, libel, profanity, and "fighting words" are unprotected expression because “such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
It would seem you dont know very much about Federal Judges.
Incitement Test See:
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Hess v. Indiana (1973)
Rice v. Paladin Press (1997)
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
But more importantly see:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as it directly applies to this very situation.
Chaplinsky was convicted for swearing at a police officer. Justice Murphy's ruling states that lewdness, obscenity, libel, profanity, and "fighting words" are unprotected expression because “such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
It would seem you dont know very much about Federal Judges.
Your arrogant and condescending tone aside, what exactly did I not understand about this -- remember, I did not outright say you were wrong, only that I had doubts about the veracity of your claim, and listed this case as an example of why:
[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…
The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…
Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…
No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.
The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…
Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…
No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Hess v. Indiana (1973)
Rice v. Paladin Press (1997)
Hess v. Indiana (1973)
Rice v. Paladin Press (1997)
As for Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), he was arrested because of local statutes against insulting people in public places:
Along the way he met the town marshal, who had earlier warned Chaplinsky to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion. Upon meeting the marshal for the second time, Chaplinsky attacked him verbally.
..
For this, he was arrested under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under NH.'s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place...or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."
..
For this, he was arrested under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under NH.'s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place...or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."
Although the Court continues to cite Chaplinsky's position on “fighting words” approvingly, subsequent cases have largely eroded its initial, broad formulation; libelous publications and even verbal challenges to police officers have come to enjoy some constitutional protection. Chaplinsky remains the last case in which the Court explicitly upheld a conviction only for “fighting words” directed at public officials.
"It would seem you don't know very much about federal judges." I think I've said this to you before: don't be so intent on being right all the time. Life isn't that black and white.
Last edited by saqwarrior; 07-29-2009 at 05:01 PM.
