What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
567 Comments
- JonisJon, on 10/12/2007, -56/+324WOW.... that may be the most blatant breach of freedom of speech on camera in a while. I hope both of those officers get fired.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -73/+332***** BUSH
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -54/+250"I hope both of those officers get fired."
I don't care about the officers. I hope bush gets fired. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -45/+196"Let's all completely ignore the fact that a kid is holding a sign displaying inappropriate language in a public place that could be harmful to a young child's development. What would you do if your 1st grade kid asked you what ***** meant."
1) Tell the kid it's a bad word that he shouldn't use.
2) Prey to god he doesn't grow up to be a serial killer because, you know, his development has been irreparably harmed. - JonisJon, on 10/12/2007, -9/+159Upon further research this sign is COMPLETELY legal... it has been held up in court before:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html
(Got this link from a comment from reddit from user "cleanthes") - splammo, on 10/12/2007, -48/+143Freedom of speech is not intended to protect "obscene" speech. Its a common misconception, we don't have "complete" freedom of speech. The "obscene" speech must have some valuable content with it also, apparently "Bush" does not constitute as valuable content. Don't get me wrong I am all about free speech and I totally hate George Bush but I believe this is not supposed to be protected unfortunately. :(
- all2hectic, on 10/12/2007, -26/+120@chickenstrip
"worst comment ever" - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -35/+128It may be your opinion that it is inappropriate, but that does NOT make it ILLEGAL!
- cscalfani, on 10/12/2007, -29/+119Our freedoms are slowly eroding. All in the name of safety.
And, of course, you realize that we must save the children. Even if it means arresting them. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -10/+100My take:
1) The cops were in the wrong. As much as I think it's completely self defeating and rude to use profane language in public in an argument...he has that right.
2) The cops thought they were in the right. They probably confused broadcast indecency laws with public vulgarity laws.
3) The courts would definitely overturn this case.
4) Screaming "F*** You" at the cops repeatedly is definitely not going to help.
5) Releasing the video on the internet probably will make a difference. - yoda715, on 10/12/2007, -37/+126I wish they would get fired as well, but it won't happen. They might get a slap on the wrist.
- asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -53/+119Agreed.
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -18/+84People make such a big deal about kids seeing or hearing curse words. They are going to learn them at some point in their life. It is impossible not to, unless you live in isolation from the world. It is up to the parents to teach their kids what words should not be said, but in this day and age, parents would rather sit on their lazy ass and blame society for corrupting the children.
- missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -18/+78The first amendment doesn't protect obscenity, as much as I hate to admit.
Regardless of that, however, if I want to ***** videotape the cops, I'm gonna videotape the cops. - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -11/+66Cops are not lawyers, they don't really understand the law, they know they can push others with their badge. I love good cops, I despise bad cops. A good cop knows what he is there for, other cops get pissed off when we don't respect their authority.
The DA gets stuck with this ***** all the time, cops making stupid ass arrests and they have to drop the case. Cops time wasted, DA's office time wasted. All a big ***** waste of time, all the while tramping on the rights of others.
Note that the sign could say "*****" anything, and I'm for it being legal to do so. Now I question whether its in good taste, and I question if the protester has his head up his ass for he's not really making his point, as its colored by his use of the word *****. Pretty stupid way to protest, but protected none the less.
A quick search shows the charges were dropped... - shortkid422, on 10/12/2007, -12/+60"You're going to be all of the internet" - From the video...
Let's make it happen! - nubious, on 10/12/2007, -15/+58Can a group of citizens put a police officer under arrest for breach of authority?
- deeek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+50How in the world are you "assaulted" by a word?
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46nice find! Unfortunately this kind of thing doesnt make the headlines across America because the news media tells us whats important to us. And since people's civil liberties being stomped all over is not socking enough the media decides it is not news worth. Dont ya just LOVE America? (sarcasm)
- kcap122, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38Freedom of speech does essentially mean, say whatever you want without any consequence; with one notable exception: abusing the first amendment to create a violent and/or dangerous situation. Essentially, free speech is a legitimate freedom in all cases except in those where it does not serve the interests of the general public to be used (for instance, the infamous example of falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater).
This expression of freedom does not harm anyone. It might hurt people's feelings, but it does not create a dangerous situation for anyone. "Being an asshat" doesn't make you a criminal. If someone disagrees with the law as it stands, they have to obey it until it is changed, but until that time they may protest it in whatever nonviolent fashion they choose. This video shows facism; the police abused their power to further their personal opinions about Bush. - themulf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38The day people stop thinking in polars, we will have change. There is more to politics than left and right.
- themulf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+40obscene speech is not mentioned in the constitution. The idea of obscene speech is the result of ***** on a high horse.
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36The Internet qualifies as a public space so why are you cursing on it?
Or do your rules only apply to others? - foofightrs777, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33I was just about to post Cohen..nice to see someone else with a brain on digg ;)
And the Cohen case is valid jurisprudence in all states as it reached the USSC.
Excerpt from Cohen:
"...prior decisions have established the power of government to deal more comprehensively with certain forms of individual expression simply upon a showing that such a form was employed. This is not, for example, an obscenity case. Whatever else may be necessary to give rise to the States' broader power to prohibit obscene expression, such expression must be, in some significant way, erotic. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). It cannot plausibly be maintained that this vulgar allusion to the Selective Service System would conjure up such psychic stimulation in anyone likely to be confronted with Cohen's crudely defaced jacket."
Furthermore, "Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. See, e.g., Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971). While this Court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue, e.g., Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970), we have at the same time consistently stressed that "we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech." Id., at 738. The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections...
...Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes. And, while it may be that one has a more substantial claim to a recognizable privacy interest when walking through a courthouse corridor than, for example, strolling through Central Park"
Imagine that, you could simply avert your eyes to material which YOU find offensive. Looks like I've discovered the long lost solution to "indecency". makes you wonder where our common sense went... :/ - adalgiso, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39Nobody is "assaulting" you by holding up a sign with the word "*****" written on it.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -11/+37"I would love to see the reaction by you all if he was wearing a shirt that said "***** Steven Colbert" or "Being a fag is a sin" maybe then your reactions might be a little different."
If it said "***** ste(ph)en colbert", i wouldn't like it, and i may yell at him, but I wouldn't believe he should be arrested. As for "Being a fag is a sin", that has been done in public many times before and they were never arrested. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -21/+46Yeah good for you, you think i'm afraid of police. The only thing about that is, every once in a while, someone actually talks about his friend. You know, one that actually exists.
Hell, if I were gay i'd tell you, i'm not going to bother lying about a being scared of cops. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California
"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."
edit: didn't see it was already posted, sorry - dan2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+34My virgin ears!
- definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27I quoth the genius Bill Hicks:
What's the cut off date for people to stop caring? Save the kids, save the kids. Why not save humanity you *****. - eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Charges against this kid were dropped:
http://stpeteforpeace.org/palmharbor.html - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24You are still cursing in a public space.
Is it really that hard for you to follow your own rules? - Daedalus2067, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Profanity is not covered under "Free speech" statutes in some areas. There are a number of similar exceptions, from the benign slander/liable violations to more aggressive/dangerous things like shouting "Fire!" in a crowd or telling a baggage inspector that you're carrying a bomb. Freedom of expression has certain imposed and accepted limits, typically defined by the "reasonable man" statue in the local area it is imposed. Anyone can speak ill of a politician, but profanity is not always allowed in all municipalities - that is the crux of the matter here.
- Surefoot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%*****+bush%22
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,590,000 for "***** bush".
The police got a lot of arresting to do. - toastgodsupreme, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@themulf
Want to know what makes obscene speech... obscene?
You. Society.
So I say Duck. D-U-C-K. D-uh-ck. That's not offensive. Right?
Now I say *****. F-U-C-K. F-uh-ck. I only changed one letter, but suddenly we have mother's covering children's ears, old people are screaming, and cops are chasing me.
Why? I only changed one letter. Why does this special combination of letters suddenly drive people insane? Because they let it drive them insane. If people would GROW UP and stop acting like 44 year old children, then we'd be a whole lot better off.
Why do boobs, penises, vaginas, etc scare the parents of every child in America? Oh, because it's going to corrupt the youth!! Oh wait... look at Europe. They've got ***** and ass on tv and let's see... less gun violence, less teenage pregnancy per capita.
I wonder, do you think centuries of repressing ourselves and our children is somehow manifesting itself into anger and agression? Maybe we've shamed one too many children into thinking their bodies are big fleshy sacks of sin that they just snap and kill their classmates...
It's time to unpucker your ***** people. Stop being such a prude and loosen up. The brits must be doing something right, when's the last time you heard about a school shooting over there? Maybe we should try to follow suit. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21And this is what the guy with the camera must have been talking about. He said ~"No, it's not illegal, we already researched about this and it's not illegal!"
- mhockey14221, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19I dont think too many cops are familiar with Cohen v. California...
- tofagerl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18How 'bout instead, you teach your kid that "*****" is not a nice word, and he shouldn't say it, even if it is allowed by the government?
- TheG2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23I'm going to be Dugg to hell, but I wanted to point something out.
First of all, 2 cops arresting someone because they disagree with something isn't "government coming to kill the little people". It's called bias and its a mistake. The Cops were way out of line and everyone knows it, but its not Government stealing our rights.
Second, there is whats called a "fighting words" or "obsecenity" provision in the first amendment. It states that certain speech that's intent is to provoke or is outside of "community standards" is not protected.
I'm not saying that what this kid did was illegal, and I do agree the cops were out of line, but the bulk of these 300+ comments are people just being plainly anti-government because its becoming the popular trend without a regard for fact.
In the end, Lewis Black said it best by saying "People talk about Government like its buildings walking around doing *****, but its not, Government is people" - neverender, on 10/12/2007, -14/+30Even if the sign was not legal, would he still need to be arrested for displaying it? Wouldn't just a citation be more than enough?
This arrest is way out of line. - gamemasterjd, on 10/12/2007, -11/+271984 coming to life. Hope you remember to doublethink....
- leftfoot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Dude, somebody already said it.
- Goya, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Or, your child sees the sign. And inquires. Then you have a golden opportunity to talk and explain why the sign is bad, but why the freedom to express your opinion is important. It would be a shame to raise a child in a democratic society who does not understand why other people express their opinion in public.
- fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25Citizens arrest anyone?
- tylerbrandt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Benjamin Franklin once said - "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19how do we know it wasnt towards Jeb. . .
- TortfeasorG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The Cohen case is probably the single most recognizable free speech case in American jurisprudence. It is, for those who are not familiar, the famous "***** the Draft" case. And for whoever asked, the case is a Supreme Court case and its principles extend to the entire country.
- msbeckman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20thank you for posting this the 10th time.
- cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14ImTheDarkcyde, do you not remember the recently infamous AOL subscription cancellation recording? It was posted online, Dugg, and then began to appear on NBC & CNN. Proof positive that the Internet can change things, although in this particular case I am not sure what the impact will be.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Way to confuse private websites with public streets."
Way to confuse a joke with a serious statement. -
Show 51 - 100 of 568 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is