Results 11 to 20 of 41
|
-
-
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Posts
- 23
01-14-2012, 03:32 PM
Getting arrested for sidewalk chalk, even if he is saying stuff like Fuck the cops, is ridiculous. It's called free speech, and free speech means allowing unpopular opinions to be heard. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.
Now if he was advocating violent acts towards cops, then get him the fuck out of our society.
They wonder why they're harassed so much.
Idiots.
-
01-14-2012, 03:39 PM
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight! Isaiah 5:20-21 NASB
-
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Posts
- 950
-
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 3,497
01-16-2012, 01:12 PM
Your freedom of speech does not mean that I have to put up with your graffiti. The city has an ordinance against writing things on the sidewalk. That's everyone's sidewalk, not just yours to write on. If you want to make a sign and carry it around on that sidewalk, fine, but you don't have some Constitutionally-protected right to deface the sidewalk that belongs partially to me, even if it is something non-permanent like chalk.
Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
-
01-16-2012, 02:16 PM
A pertinent fact from the article:
The affidavit says that this was explained to Osmar multiple times, but that he disregarded the warning and continued to write on the ground.
In other words, he wanted to get arrested.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
-
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Posts
- 10,192
01-16-2012, 02:21 PM
I might have to disagree with you here. In CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT the Supreme Court ruled that a city could prohibit and remove temporary signs, even those with political speech, as long as the content neutral law was applied across the board to all similar signs regardless of message.
So the question is if the city prohibits the use of chalk on a sidewalk under all circumstances. Given that it's unlikely that any child has been arrested for drawing a grid for hopscotch, and we have not heard of the city prosecuting a store for having sidewalk art, then we can reasonably suspect that this law is not being universally enforced, and would therefore run afoul of the protection of the government in CITY COUNCIL v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT.While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun
-
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Posts
- 10,192
01-16-2012, 02:23 PM
While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun
-
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight! Isaiah 5:20-21 NASB
-
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Posts
- 10,192
01-16-2012, 02:29 PM
While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
I can relate
Yesterday, 11:29 PM in Humor