U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: A Sheriff Just Threatened Charges Over ‘F*ck Trump’ Sticker — and the Internet Is Destroying Him
Source:
The Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/a-sh ... ernet-is-destroying-him_112017
Published: Nov 16, 2017
Author: Carey Wedler
Post Date: 2017-11-17 06:40:28 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 18497
Comments: 107
On Wednesday morning, Sheriff Troy E. Nehls of Fort Bend County, Texas, posted a picture of the back of a truck asking members of the community to help him find the ‘offender.’ “I have received numerous calls regarding the offensive display on this truck as it is often seen along FM 359. If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, I would like to discuss it with you,” he said. Nehls apparently already sought to impose punishment, adding, “Our Prosecutor has informed us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it, but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification to it.” He also posted a picture in the comments of legal code concerning disorderly conduct, apparently attempting to justify his attempt to suppress free speech by suggesting the truck driver was instigating a breach of the peace. The statute, Sec. 42.01, says “a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly uses abusive, indecent, profane or vulgar language, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” or if it “makes an offensive gesture of display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Attempting to cite this statute suggests Trump supporters could be so triggered by free speech about the president they might incite violence, a particularly hilarious notion considering the right has spent months virtue signaling about the first amendment and scolding leftists for being violent snowflakes. And the Internet responded swiftly as thousands of commenters flowed in offering relentless trolling, thoughtful defenses of free speech, and cutting rebukes of partisan hypocrisy. The trolls were numerous: Other commenters were straightforward and to the point, citing previous court decisions and defenses of free speech: Still others tackled partisan hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance: Some commenters defended the sheriff and received immediate responses: A couple pointed out the fact that people actually called the police because they were so offended: The truck driver also received an offer from a lawyer and former prosecutor for free legal assistance: The ACLU of Texas also chimed in: “Sheriff Troy E. Nehls, Constitutional Law 101: You can’t ban speech just because it has ‘f@ck’ in it. “Hey truck owner, feel free to contact the ACLU of Texas.” Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 42.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
If I saw that I wouldn't call the police. I'd take a baseball bat to his truck and let him call the police.
So...you advocate violence against someone whose speech you don't like? You have much in common with Antifa.
I am the violence he's inciting.
You have much in common with Antifa Misterwhite: "I am the violence he's inciting.." Misterwhite is right again. By your rationale and logic, MW's baseball bat across the back windshield is merely also "free speech." Incitement is a criminal offense and a verbal assault in this case. As well as defending the honor of one's wife, mother, daughter, family, friends. Ever hear of the saying, "Them's fighting words"?? What was plastered all over that vehicle was blatant IN YOUR FACE fighting words. The perp not only chose to publicly verbally assault the President, but those who "voted FOR him." Deckard, to what end does this kind of incendiary Antifa baiting and BS end? Nasty, vulgar insults designed to bait and incite can only lead to one conclusion. And THIS is just part of the Left's/Antifa's open season on Trump and those who voted for him. With respect to this case, there are only TWO sides to take. You've chosen poorly.
Exactly. But Deckard believes that free speech is so sacred that it should be free from consequences. Burn a flag, no consequence. Curse and spit at a cop and he can't do a thing. HE has rights. You don't.
Burn a flag, no consequence. Curse and spit at a cop and he can't do a thing. Hear ya. For over 5,000 years, insulting and dishonoring one's mother or wife would be cause for b*tch-slapping and knuckle-sandwiching at the least, challenge to a dual/fight, OR worse. In the "old neighborhood" -- not long ago, EVERYONE would have understood the common sense unspoken rules and laws of society. What is being defended in this case of Donald Trump as well as his voters told to "Eff" themselves, is well over the line of decency and crystal clear incitement to violence. It reeks of Antifa/Alinsky tactics. In a nutshell, we are witnessing a hostile and clear case of Social Anarchy. But only because Trump is President. The MSM has been encoraging the overt public hostility. Now most of us realize that were this language targeting 0bama, the cacophony of howls and outrage from the Left and MSM would be deafening. The perp would likely be arrested. This irrational support of free speech under ALL circumstances is a very new concept. However, it is VERY selective, based on political correctness and those who control the culture's power structure. There seems to be one set of rules for Democrats, Progressives, and Homos/Queers, and one for Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians. The inconsistencies and bias from Democrats, the Judiciary, AND even the Supreme Court in their enforcement of Constitutional Law is conspicuously one-sided. It seems Social Justice crusaders get mulligans, whereas Conservatives are disproportionately penalized.
Oh the Irony! How are you and paulsen any different than Antifa?
There are no replies to Comment # 42. End Trace Mode for Comment # 42.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
I'd take a baseball bat to his truck and let him call the police.
#4. To: Deckard (#3)
So...you advocate violence against someone whose speech you don't like?
#10. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#4)
Deckard: "So...you advocate violence against someone whose speech you don't like?"
#37. To: Liberator, Deckard (#10)
MW's baseball bat across the back windshield is merely also "free speech."
#40. To: misterwhite, Deckard, tpaine (#37)
But Deckard believes that free speech is so sacred that it should be free from consequences.
#42. To: Liberator (#40)
What is being defended in this case of Donald Trump as well as his voters told to "Eff" themselves, is well over the line of decency and crystal clear incitement to violence. It reeks of Antifa/Alinsky tactics.
Replies to Comment # 42.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]