Sheriff Thinks He Can Use Bogus Disorderly Conduct Charges To Shut Down Speech He Doesn't Like

from the christ,-what-an-asshole dept

A Texas sheriff did some pandering to his base this week, ultimately making a fool of himself. On Monday, Sheriff Troy Nehls posted the following to Facebook:

If you can't see it, it's a photo of a truck with a decal attached to the rear window. The decal reads:

Fuck Trump and fuck you for voting for him

Here's what Sheriff Nehls wrote:

I have received numerous calls regarding the offensive display on this truck as it is often seen along FM 369. If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, we would like to discuss it with you. Our Prosecutor informs us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it, but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification of it.

This is stupid on every single level. First off, as former police officer and current attorney Greg Prickett points out in his post at Simple Justice, there's no way those charges would stick.

Sheriff, that's political speech, and it's protected speech. You don't get to silence it because you don't like it, or even because it offends you, the District Attorney, or anyone else. The Disorderly Conduct statute in Texas is very clear on this.

You can charge someone with Disorderly Conduct if "the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace," or if the "display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace…" That hasn't happened here. If Fonseca and her family have been driving around for almost a year and there have been no fights, no disturbances, no riots or so forth, you are not going to be able to prove that there was a danger of an "immediate breach of the peace."

Instead, Nehls may have rained down fire on his own idiotic head by pursuing it.

What you may have, instead, is another crime, a much more serious crime, being threatened by Sheriff Nehls. If Nehls goes through with his threat, it could very well meet the elements of the offense of Official Oppression, which states:

(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful…

Now, let's get to the rest of the moronic post.

It is highly doubtful the Sheriff has "received numerous calls" about a window decal. Even given the sorry state of Americans' understanding of the First Amendment, most people would realize a sweary decal is not a law enforcement issue. More likely, the Sheriff or one of his deputies spotted it and took a photo or, at best, a concerned citizen sent it to the apparently pro-Trump Sheriff in hopes that he would abuse the law to shut down protected speech. (If so, well played, citizen. Everyone loves an American who believes in less rights for people they don't agree with.)

Next, the "discussion" proposed by the Sheriff is a bait-and-switch. Unlike most bait-and-switch purveyors, Sheriff Nehls is too excited about prosecution to allow the bait to do its work. By pitching it as a voluntary interaction, Nehls covers his ass on official oppression. But he immediately uncovers it by referring to a prosecutor just dying to punish protected expression with a bogus disorderly conduct charge.

That brings us to perhaps the stupidest part of Nehls' post. Nehls states a prosecutor is willing to move forward with charges. That appears to be a lie.

KHOU 11 News also reached out to the Fort Bend County District Attorney.

He says the Sheriff never consulted him before posting the suggestion the driver may be charged with disorderly conduct.

He made it clear his office would not accept charges against that driver simply because of the profanity and message on the truck.

It's unclear who Nehls is referring to. This prosecutor is a he (Nehl's post refers to a "she"), and he apparently would be in charge of prosecuting cases brought to him by the Sheriff. I suppose he could be referring to one of the other prosecutors in the DA's office, but all cases would presumably be signed off by the DA himself before moving forward. If one of them offered to help the Sheriff fight his battle against the First Amendment, they would be aiding and abetting official oppression.

Having outed himself as a law enforcement official willing to oppress speech under the color of law, Nehls gracelessly deleted his Facebook post. He then went on to issue a statement to the effect of "I just wanted to talk to this person about their bumper sticker… but with the dangling threat of prosecution as a backdrop."

Nehls addressed the post in a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

"People have called and are offended by the language," said Nehls. "I simply want to talk to the owner and say 'Look the last thing we need to do is have anyone have any confrontation over the language on your truck.'"

But this can't possibly be true. If all Nehls wanted to do is talk, he had plenty of time to do so. And he could have done it without dragging the vehicle owners into his social media debacle. But it appears he'd rather grandstand on Facebook than do actual police work and, you know, track down the owners of the vehicle. Even with the head start of license plate database access and its favored route of travel, the local news team managed to be the first people to actually talk to the truck owners.

KHOU 11 News tracked down the owners of the truck, Karen and Mike Fonseca. They are stunned and angry that Nehls would start this debate on Facebook instead of calling them personally.

They say they're entitled to their free speech.

"There's no law against freedom of speech, nothing in the law book here in Texas, I've been stopped numerous times, but they can't write me a ticket," said Karen Fonseca.

The truck owners are more right in two sentences than Nehls was in a Facebook post and ensuing press conference. They are definitely right to be angry about Nehls' casual abuse of office that turned them into targets for hate from like-minded fans of free speech curtailment.

Above all else, Sheriff Nehls is a disingenous asshole.

The sheriff said he wants to avoid a situation where somebody could take offense to the sign on the truck, possibly leading to a confrontation.

"I don't want to see anything happen to anyone," Nehls said. "With people's ... mindset today, that's the last thing we need, a breach of the peace."

Then why the fuck would you post a photo of the truck and decal to Facebook? You're just begging for a "breach of the peace." You've turned the owners into a target for pro-Trump partisans and people who like to yell at other people for public swearing. You pulled some petty bullshit under the color of law and have the audacity to claim your foremost concern is the truck owners' safety. If this is what the public gets to see of your mindset and retaliatory nature, one can only imagine what goes on behind the scenes.

Nehls says he wants to "come to an agreement regarding a modification" to the anti-Trump decal. I can suggest one, but I doubt the Sheriff will like it.

And, of course, as I put the finishing touches on this post comes the news that Fonseca has been arrested -- though for an outstanding warrant.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Aerie (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:05pm

    Tim, thanks for reporting on this. I didn't think techdirt would report on it after I sent in the link on it. But, when I heard about this ridiculous sheriff, my eyes were rolling at the ceiling.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:31pm

    "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

    Of course you do.* You have a double standard internally, no matter how committed to free speech you may be on the outside.

    So -- if honest -- you'd agree with the general principle of NOT advertising incitements to anger. That's all the Sheriff says. It's not a "bogus" charge, either.

    BUT you have Trump Derangement Syndrome, so rabidly defend anything anti-Trump. -- And Law Derangement Syndrome, so rabidly oppose civil society.


    (*Assuming human, which I don't of the alleged Techdirt minion re-writers.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:41pm

      Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

      You're delusional. No one says to prosecute the dummies who chant 'Jail her', it's just pointed to as evidence of how rabid and cult-like his followers are.

      But don't let that get in the way of your gigantic strawman.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:44pm

        Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

        Plus on the chance that you're referring to Agent Orange himself yelling it, there's a big difference between a sticker on a truck and gathering a big audience and whipping them into a frenzy.

        Now if this guy stood on a podium in the town square and gathered a crowd to storm whatever by chanting the same words, then yes that guy should be prosecuted. That would be the nuance in the situations. You understand that word, right? Nuance. Sound it out if you're having trouble with it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

          we know...

          You don't support the 1st amendment unless it serves your political purposes, as usual.

          Try eating the pretzel instead of using it for your logic.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

            >as usual

            I'm not sure which of the resident whack jobs you're referring to, but for what it's worth I can assure you I'm not them.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

              as usual as in, as usual, there is another someone saying they are for freedom of speech and then shows they are against it.

              you either support it or you don't. Most people don't they just say they do until someone say's something they don't like and then agree to someone being silenced.

              "Now if this guy stood on a podium in the town square and gathered a crowd to storm whatever by chanting the same words, then yes that guy should be prosecuted."

              You make it clear that your freedom of speech is "conditional" meaning you don't support the 1st, you just agree with freedom of speech for me, but not for thee.

              the 1st does not make freedom of speech conditional, it just makes it an absolute liberty and you don't agree with that, which makes it "as usual" someone against the 1st amendment.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Palm to Forehead, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:16pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

                Do you not understand the difference between words and actions? The critical clause in the previous post was that the person standing on the podium was gathering the crowd to

                --> STORM WHATEVER <--

                See? That's an action! That's a criminal action! Storming something, presumably with violence IS a crime!
                Talking about it as a possibility is not. Even saying 'this place should be stormed' is protected speech up and to a point.

                Saying words should NEVER be a crime, whether they're your crazy interpretation of what is going on here or mine.

                As a person who has been involved in peaceful demonstrations across the entire country for the last 25 or so years, believe me when I say law enforcement uses this kind of silliness almost every day. They hold people accountable for someone else's criminal behavior because they don't like the message that person is espousing. If someone punches you in the nose for the words you have on a sign or banner, if the LEO doesn't like the words -- it's your fault and you're guilty of disorderly conduct because you incited them to punch you.

                To say that this country doesn't understand the first amendment is the grossest of understatements.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:29pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

                  Huh? you have been face palming yourself too much.

                  You need to clarify where you stand because you are contradicting your position a bit!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 2:59pm

                    Many Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

                    Do you seriously not understand the difference?

                    Because speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.

                    Actions, incitement to riot, are not and quite often there are local laws (DC, States and many cities therein) against that activity. It's a fine line and difficult to walk at times but many law enforcement do it correctly.

                    The sheriff threatened prosecution for a sign. The sign said Fuck Trump (and more) which is Protected Speech. The sign does not say Fuck Trump and Let's Burn Police Cars.

                    That alone is a violation of the 1st Amendment. It is also oppression in every sense of the word.

                    If you cannot understand the distinction then you really need to learn to read or read the constitution. Hint: specifically the 1st Amendment.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 2:40pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

                Incitement is not covered by free speech, which is what the poster was referring to.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Matthew Cline (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 3:54pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

                the 1st does not make freedom of speech conditional, it just makes it an absolute liberty and you don't agree with that, which makes it "as usual" someone against the 1st amendment.

                Do you disagree with the law(s) making incitement illegal? Or do you not think that what's being discussed amounts to incitement?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Matthew Cline (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 3:57pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

                No, wait, sorry. Re-reading, it would seem that you're fine with incitement being illegal, and also think that the sticker counts as disorderly conduct? That is, you think that "the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace," or if the "display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace…" ?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 6:56pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

                  The sticker doesn't incite anything, Incitement is "let's all Lynch that gay person" with the intention of actually doing so and having people who are willing to do it listening to you. Swearing or discussion is not incitement no matter the language.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Unanimous Cow Herd, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:28pm

        Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

        Rabid and cult like... You mean like driving around with profanities pointed at another group pasted to your car for a year?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 2:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

          Passive aggressive speech is pretty far flung from rabid. As for cult-like? I guess if there were a lot of these stickers sure.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 20 Nov 2017 @ 7:17am

        Classic example of media spin here.

        "Jail her" doesn't violate local community standards. "Fuck" does. It doesn't matter what the political context is.

        This is why it's moronic when the coastal urban centers screech that they have the right to run everyone else's business. You have no clue. You don't want one. You're actually proud that you're ignorant.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2017 @ 7:25am

          Re: Classic example of media spin here.

          Local community standards don't supercede the first amendment. It doesn't matter what the local context is.

          This is why it's moronic when flyover states screech that they have the right to own a gun. You have no clue. You don't want one. You're actually proud that you're ignorant.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Machin Shin, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:54pm

      Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

      You saying their speech should be silenced because it might offend someone. Then you intentionally say things that will offend people. I'm just not even really sure what to think on that.....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:06pm

      Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

      The word “fuck” does not automatically rob speech of First Amendment protections.

      Incidentally, I wonder if that sheriff has any plans to arrest anyone with a “Fuck [X]” bumper sticker that puts Obama, Clinton, or the Democrats in general in the blank space.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Cdaragorn (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:12pm

      Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

      It's not a "bogus" charge, either.

      I'm sorry, what would you call an illegal arrest that the sheriff can be charged criminally for going through with?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Matthew Cline (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 4:14pm

      Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

      So -- if honest -- you'd agree with the general principle of NOT advertising incitements to anger.

      I'd agree with the general principle of politeness of not advertising incitements to anger. I most certainly would not agree to the general legal principle of not advertising incitements to anger.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2017 @ 6:54am

      Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

      What the fuck is this word salad?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:34pm

    Modification

    Fuck Sheriff Troy Nehls and fuck you for voting for him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:47pm

    Der Gropenführer is pleased by the sheriff.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:48pm

    I think that the message is fine in and of itself. I think that the way it is presented is not so much.

    Using the F word in a place where children will (obvious) see it is in poor taste. While I am all for free speech, the same speech could have been made (and understood by adults) if the F word has been spelled out as F--K.

    Put another way: Try to put up a billboard with that exact message and exact wording on it, and see how quickly it comes down. Fuck is still an obscenity.

    I also think to a certain extent this is more of an example of how low and how dangerous the discourse has gotten in the last decade or so. "Dem's fightin' Werds!" is a good way to explain this sort of speech, apparently legal but about as bright as a burned out bulb. These are the sort of people who get shot at or have their vehicle vandalized and go to the media saying "we have no idea why!".

    Is the Sheriff being stupid? More than a bit. He's not wrong, but there are few laws on the books about painting a target on your own back.

    Personally, I would love to see a case like this go to SCOTUS.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:50pm

      Re:

      "is in poor taste"

      but protected by the 1st.

      "While I am all for free speech,..."

      until your not, we got it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 5:40pm

        Re: Re:

        Obscenity is not protected speech

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 7:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes it fucking is.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            AzureSky (profile), 19 Nov 2017 @ 12:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            untrue, you should really read up on this thing trumps and clintons arent to fond of, the constitution, ;)

            also, "obscenity" is very subjective, in my great grand mothers youth, it was still considered "obscene" for women to have exposed ankles/legs in much of the country... now...not so much...to most people....

            hell, at least once a day i see somebody calling democrats/republicans obscene...(at least one each way, its amusing...since they both are.. ;) )

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            JEDIDIAH, 20 Nov 2017 @ 7:19am

            Snore Snore

            That's not an argument, that's a bald assertion. A relevant legal cite might actually be useful here. You lot would rather just engage in mindless sanctimonious grand standing.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Machin Shin, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:59pm

      Re:

      The "for the kids" argument is fucking stupid, can we please stop using it already?

      You saying there are a bunch of poor kids, old enough to read but sheltered enough to have never heard "fuck" before that will be traumatized by this? Come on, how many kids you know of who give a fuck about a bumper sticker?

      Then also if they are so sheltered as to be clueless at this point, then they are with their parents anyways. Parents who certainly are not going to honestly answer when their kid asks "Hey mommy, what's fuck mean?"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:07pm

      Re:

      No one should be forced to silence their speech on the off-chance that it might offend someone.

      I mean, if that were true, you would be forced to shut up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:19pm

      Re:

      You know what's obscene?

      Most of Puerto Rico still without electricity, water, or food two months later.

      A candidate for the US Senate who has a hobby of pedophilia and rape.

      A tax bill that will eviscerate graduate education in the US.

      A Hollywood mogul who sexually assaulted women, then intimidated and doxed them.

      A President who runs a modeling agency so that he has a ready supply of underage girls to rape.

      The murder rate in Baltimore.

      Homeless veterans.

      Nazis marching on American soil.

      Another Keystone pipeline spill, and another, and another, and another...

      The mass-shooting-incident-of-the-day.

      An administration stocked with people who apparently had more meetings with the Russians than they did with their own party officials.

      There are all kinds of obscenities, all around us, that involve human suffering and death, the destruction of the environment, the dissolution of the country. By comparison, "FUCK" on the back of a pickup truck isn't even a microscopic blip on the radar.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Baron von Robber, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:53pm

        Re: Re:

        Muammar Covfefe is doing his best to turn the USA into a first world, coal-powered, super-nothing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2017 @ 6:55am

        Re: Re:

        "By comparison, "FUCK" on the back of a pickup truck isn't even a microscopic blip on the radar."

        It is a distraction.

        deflect, project, distract
        . rinse & repeat

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Do you know SCOTUS history?, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:20pm

      Re:

      There are many cases like this that have gone to SCOTUS. They have routinely held that the public transit ways like sidewalks and roads are to be held in public trust for the free expression of ESPECIALLY dissenting opinions on matters of public concern.

      Whether you LIKE the way the dissent is expressed, as long as it does not violate the rights of others or break other laws, is utterly, completely, 100%, without a doubt, no questions asked, iron-clad OF NO CONCERN. If you don't like the words someone uses to express an opinion on a matter of public interest, go express your own words! That's the answer! Don't force your lazy assedness on everyone else via government control of the words.

      And get off the 'for the children' bullshit. If it's okay for kids to see and have 'Billy is a boy today but a girl tomorrow' in the classroom every day of the week, they can see 'Fuck' on a truck. Seriously, get over it --it's a WORD.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 10:49pm

      Re:

      We get it, anything Masnick or Moody or Bode agrees with gives you a hyper-allergenic reaction through the prosthetic sausage you call a reproductive organ.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Groaker (profile), 18 Nov 2017 @ 3:22am

      Re: My name here

      I can tell that you haven't been around children lately. When they believe that they are outside the audio range of an adult, their language would not be acceptable at Paris Island.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JoeCool (profile), 18 Nov 2017 @ 5:02pm

        Re: Re: My name here

        Not even that for some. I've heard 10 year-olds use more and worse swearing AROUND ADULTS than I did as a college student. You hear that language and look at the adult, giving them that 'Well? Aren't you gonna do something?' look, and they either ignore you, or tell you to mind your own business.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2017 @ 8:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: My name here

          You hear that language and look at the adult, giving them that 'Well? Aren't you gonna do something?' look, and they either ignore you, or tell you to mind your own business.

          Unless they're using the words incorrectly or promoting bigotry, why should the adult do anything? Children are supposed to learn how to talk.

          So mind your own business, I guess.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Aerie (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:53pm

    These law enforcement goons must really hate the constitution. It prevents them from avoiding lawsuits and effectively arresting and convicting American citizens.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:53pm

    welp

    so the driver has been pulled over numerous times and they didn't arrest them then for their outstanding warrants. none of that is proof; it just sounds fishy to me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 12:53pm

    I once read of a professor in the Soviet Union who got in trouble for wearing a button saying "Pray For Sex." It was the word "pray" that offended Soviet sensibilities.

    It won't be long before a "Fuck Trump" sign like this one is considered offensive... for mentioning Trump. Regardless of political leanings.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 20 Nov 2017 @ 7:23am

      It's better than that even.

      That's rich considering that you would happily dox someone for a viewpoint you don't like or cheer on those that would.

      The professor was really old enough to know better. You could get sent to the gulag for having a copy of Dale Carnegie. Even that was banned.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:13pm

    You miss the point.

    First off, as former police officer and current attorney Greg Prickett points out in his post at Simple Justice, there's no way those charges would stick.

    Those charges won't stick, but they'll still be quite icky as they slither down your face, and you have to pay for your defense while the sheriff does not have to pay a dime for the charge, even if it is completely frivolous. Even if you manage the miraculous feat of getting your costs reimbursed, it's still not the sheriff who has to pay a dime for harrassing you and stealing your time and money.

    An ordinary citizen can convert his money into arbitrary harrassment suits which may or may not incur costs with the target. But a law enforcement officer can convert other people's money into harrassment suits. There is just no downside for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    peter, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:25pm

    Meanwhile here in the UK

    A woman possibly faces prosecution for a banner stating "Fuck the DUP" (DUP - Democratic Unionist Party)

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/13/woman-could-face-hate-prosecution-over-anti-du p-banner

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:36pm

      Re: Meanwhile here in the UK

      UK don't have the same protections on speech that the USA is "supposed" to have.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 20 Nov 2017 @ 5:59am

        Re: Re: Meanwhile here in the UK

        Confirmed correct. We've had the police show up to "discuss the matter" with a blogger for criticising UKIP before now. They were friendly enough and they knew they were in the wrong but that was intimidating.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:38pm

      Re:

      but we are talking about the "disorderly conduct" charges.

      "Our Prosecutor informs us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it,"

      I think it is safe to say that the "other" charges are just included to try to save face for the po po.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jjmsan (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 1:49pm

    DA and Arrest

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DB (profile), 18 Nov 2017 @ 6:23am

      Re: DA and Arrest

      At first that seemed off-topic, but it (and the following comments) provided a great deal of additional info.

      The sheriff went to Liberty University, the far-right university founded by Jerry Falwell. It's not known for high academic standards. It is known for its political and religious stance. They make it clear to incoming students that free speech takes a back seat to religious belief.

      The truck owner worked for the Sheriff Dept until relatively recently.

      The arrest was for an offense in March and April 2014 (when she worked at the Sheriff's Dept?).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 3:13pm

    Not a lawyer but....

    Even considering the jurisprudence and common law legacy I don't understand how "disorderly conduct" as a charge hasn't been thrown out as unconstitutionally vague. Is it one of those stupid 'legal tradition' things where nobody throws out something obviously wrong because it has always been done that way?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Orville Redenbacher, 17 Nov 2017 @ 6:18pm

    This one should be good for at least a couple bags of microwave gourmet popcorn ... extra butter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 17 Nov 2017 @ 9:45pm

    Fixed that for you

    Fuck Trump and
    fuck you for voting for him and
    fuck you for being offended by this and
    fuck you for trying to curtail my First Amendment rights cause you're butthurt

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2017 @ 10:16pm

    "The sheriff, a Republican who is weighing a bid for Congress"
    Good luck with that that now, dipshit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2017 @ 4:18am

    Lets get real

    If someone walked around giving your kids the middle finger, you wouldnt consider it free speech, you would see it as disorderly conduct and you would expect the police to prevent it from continuing. Its the subject of the F-U that causes you to pick this side. Thats whats wrong with america. Because it is an action taken against someone you dont like, you consider it acceptable. That sort of stuff has been happening for the last couple centuries here. I would think it very offensive if it was f trump, f hillary, f sanders, f ronald mcdonald.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2017 @ 7:02am

      Re: Lets get real

      "walked around giving your kids the middle finger"
      - completely different


      "Because it is an action taken against someone you dont like, you consider it acceptable. "
      - wrong

      "That sort of stuff has been happening for the last couple centuries here."
      - same as it ever was


      Am I allowed to be offended when some go to great lengths simply to scratch their pet peeves?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      AzureSky (profile), 19 Nov 2017 @ 12:31pm

      Re: Lets get real

      not really, i would just tell my kids, "kids, thats whats called an asshole, dont be an asshole" just like the best father i have watched raise kids, a good friend of mine...whos kids are no worse for growing up around "obscene" language, hell, they have watch carlin videos for hollidays since my friend was a kid, his oldist daughers on a full ride to a private school that even covers cloths, on course for a full ride at a major uni, in a STEM field, his only problem child is the youngest and, shes like a mini-me of him...(we all love her, shes a riot, and not a bad kid, just snaky, and sarcastic, and way to bright and inquisitive..also..way to good at spotting bullshit....)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 20 Nov 2017 @ 6:03am

        Re: Re: Lets get real

        If someone walked around giving your kids the middle finger they should walk away and leave the idiot to it. Why should anyone take it upon him or herself to police the behaviour of others? Unless he's trying to grab your kids, he's a nuisance to be avoided.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 20 Nov 2017 @ 6:03am

        Re: Re: Lets get real

        If someone walked around giving your kids the middle finger they should walk away and leave the idiot to it. Why should anyone take it upon him or herself to police the behaviour of others? Unless he's trying to grab your kids, he's a nuisance to be avoided.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McGyver (profile), 18 Nov 2017 @ 6:45am

    Let's get realer...

    Let's get real?
    Nobody is flipping off little children... And little children didn't vote for Trump... Or did they?
    Whatever, it's not directed at children...
    Plain and simple...
    It's free speech, like it or not... Crude or not...
    I think I'd be more inclined to say the message was in bad taste because the language was crude if I hadn't seen "Fuck Obama" and "Fuck Hillary" well before Trump was installed... And probably not too many folks here are old enough to remember the old "Fuck Iran" bumper stickers back during the days of yore, when "Fuck" actually had a lot more shock appeal...
    Do you see "concerned" people raining righteous indignation down on all the other crude auto related bullshit out there?
    I've see many a set of rubber balls hanging from trailer hitches... I think physical dildo accessories dangling from your pickup are a bit cruder and far less necessary...
    Is anyone threatening the bearers of the "1(800) EAT-SHIT" sticker?
    Is Hobbs pissing on a Ford logo too crude?
    How about "Ass, Grass or Cash" or "Fuckengroovin"...?
    It's harmless good ol' boy humor when it's about something you are indifferent about, makes you chuckle or supports your views...
    But shocking visual threat to the eyeballs of small children when it's about something you support.
    Fuck democracy, you gotta nip that in the bud before more people start agreeing...
    Now, your innocent eyes are finally offended...
    Now it's time to pick and choose what is offensive.
    Big fucking deal...
    "Fuck what you don't like" was done long ago, so live with it when it's finally against something you do like.
    Funny how no matter how crude anti Obama rhetoric was, no matter how many rubber nut sacks are dangling from ballsy trucks, no matter how crude the the pun on the sticker is nobody tried to threaten those people with jail...
    But say something crude about Trump... Now you gotta start watching your back.
    Do I like Trump?
    Fuck no.
    Is the language crude?
    Sure.
    Is crude new?
    No.
    Is it illegal?
    Fuck no.
    But ultimately it's shit like this that makes people want to scream "Fuck you and your supporters"...
    So to all the hypocrites out there who are shocked by "Fuck Trump", but never uttered a word when it was "Fuck the other guys"...
    Well, Fuck, fuck, fuckity, fuck you and your pets too...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      AzureSky (profile), 19 Nov 2017 @ 12:36pm

      Re: Let's get realer...

      well said, i cannot stop laughing at the trump supporters i know on fb and IRL who spent 8 years calling him the n word, a "mooselimb" "terrorist"..etc... who are very very very offended that people arent respecting trump.....the funniest part i have gotten more then one "not racist" to say verious forms of "its not like its that nibber obama" i just rofl... now, i dont have tds, i have loathed/despised the man since the 80's and 90's when he was on talk tv alot... just always came off as such a major douchebag egotist...thats never changed....

      and i find some of the shit they spew at/about trump...bloody stupid...stick to serious shit, stop using trump to distract us from the shit the govt is doing to fuck us under cover of trump....ugg...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bruce C., 18 Nov 2017 @ 12:56pm

    *It is highly doubtful the Sheriff has "received numerous calls" about a window decal. *

    Regrettably, if there are enough voters in the county to elect this sheriff and/or voted for Trump, he probably did get several complaints from people. Even without blind partisanship, there are still people who want to suppress all usage of the "seven words you can't say on television".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2017 @ 6:38am

    Seems like a lot of assholes are involved in this story.

    Karen and Mike Fonseca really have to be douchbags to have that on their truck. That being said, it isn't against the law to be a douchbag.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2017 @ 10:28am

    "You've turned the owners into a target"

    but he wont be held liable with that above the law protection

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Thanks To Our Sponsors

The Techdirt Free Speech Edition
is a partnership with

with sponsorship from:

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.