Skip to comments.WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 'RACIST LANGUAGE' AT TACO BELL
Posted on 02/03/2006 11:07:42 AM PST by Irontank
click here to read article
I don't know...but I'm still saluting.
But remember in the absence of light we are all the same color.
Deep Thoughts by Justanotherokie
What is it about the phrase; The right of free speech shall not be infringed" that confuses these Connecticut idiots?
"Sec. 53-37. Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both. (1949 Rev., S. 8376.)"
Wow cool...1984 is here.
Methinks the window banger is stupid.
Why would you launch an epithet at the person/people preparing your food? They will in all likelihood, Jesse Jackson your meal.
Has this law been challenged in court yet?
What about ridiculing on the basis of lack of intellect?
No, you got all wrong.
All speech is free...its just that some speech is more free than others.
same thing as the second.....
You can be arrested for being a tacky tasteless loudmouth jerk........how about that. I suspect that when the police got involved she continued to be a jerk resulting in her arrest.....breach of peace???? LOL I will be curious to see how this plays out in court.
Sounds more like Sweden."
It sounds to me as though you are ridiculing people who are Swedish -- or who are of Sweidhs descent.
Careful, or I might have you charged with "ridicule on account of national origin".
I left Connecticut 15 years ago, mostly because of these idiots that revere the right to claim injury for nonexistant injuries. Yup, the weirdos are taking over. Every culture is better than what used to be ours.
Whatever happened to; sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me? How did society get so candy@ssed anyway. Libtards. There I answered my own question.
"Ridicule an account of race, creed, etc." OK... I'm guessing that this one hasn't, as of yet, attracted the notice of any higher courts.
That looks like Amanda Tapping
Heh, heh. Actually I am of Swedish descent myself.
This sort of reminds me of the Swedish pastor who got arrested for giving a sermon about gays.
And "dating". Evidently a very versatile animal, the camel.
I guess Kelo took away more than Property Rights...Americans Rights that have been guaranteed by the Cinstitution are stripped away daily...
What does it take for the People to realize the "Tree of Liberty" is extremely parched?!?!
Kinda interesting in light of the Islamazi world going ballistic over cartoons, and our State Department is apologizing for the offense?
Who's values and customs and rights seem to be more important to this Gub'Mint?
Think the ACLU will sue on free speech grounds?
I don't know but, if it's improper, then I demand that she remove it immediately.
In fact, if this wasn't a family oriented blog, I'd remove it for her, but then the mods would remove me.
Methinks that the blue state libs are actually more racist than red state conservative. Regardless, the "drive window attendant" would not have been arrested for having called the drive up customer a "white bitch." That's the truth and everyone knows it....
Libs make race an issue, whereas most conservatives (ironically I suppose) have moved on.
Well, according to McCain-Feingold, there are only certain times when it is acceptable to ridicule a politician. The 1st amendment does not apply in this country any more. Sooner or later, the politicians will get around to dumping the ceremonial lip service they pay to the constitution just like they dumped the idea of actually following it.
A system of belief, principles, or opinions
A Connecticut liberal: You're conservative? Conservatives are so mean-spirited
Me: That's it...I'm having you arrested for ridiculing me on account of my creed
It is indeed. I don't know how the one near Ft. Hood, survives so close to San Antonio (only 2.5 hours) and right across the street from a real Mexican restaurant, (hole in the wall type) where I'd already planned go for supper tonight. :)
Mr. Byrd can probably expect the Reverend Jackson to show up any time now, whether he wants the presence of the Reverend or not.
Street-Arab doesn't imply a person of arabic descent. It is a term of slang, but disrespectful all right.
Most of them in Texas, especially South Texas, know that. The owner/manager of the 7-11 may not, but the clerks mostly do. Most would not know what it was if you called it a Tostada, which is what Taco Bueno calls them.
??? It's perfectly good Tex Mex usage. What would you call a flat fried corn tortilla with "stuff" on top? Some call them Tostadas, and I'm sure there are other names.
Some of them are pretty tasty. Our favorite *local* place in San Antonio makes 'em with black beans and white cheese (and lettuce), and they are my wife's favorite.
I resemble that remark!
Censorship in its purest form. If the Supreme Court doesn't throw this law out, we are no better than France.
If that meant Taco Bell went out of business, that would be the first good result from the civil courts in a good long time. (Taco Bell is owned by Yum Brands, which also owns KFC, Long John Silver's, A&W and Pizza Hut some or all of which used to belong to PepsiCo).
Youse can say dat, but don't youse say "Grease for Victory", that wouldn't be PC at all.
Technically yes, but I don't think she means to dishonor the flag, quite the contrary most likely.
Sort of the obverse of the "Sand N" terminology?
I guess I'm too sheltered.
Has to do with vagrants, tramps, panhandlers, bos, not any particular ethnicity.
Use of disapproved terminology. Tsk, tsk. Throw the book at her.
No, disturbing the peace is one of the charges. "Fighting words" can and are illegal in most jurisdictions. There are factual issues to be resolved here, but IF the incident meets the elements necessary for conviction, she deserves punishment.
If its good enough for LEOs, it should be good enough for all others.
The misdemeanor of Disorderly Conduct is defined in common law as "words uttered to another that one would reasonably expect to incite another to violence" (fighting words).
This is a common-sense definition of a misdemeanor that existed for centuries...
Long before the statutory definition of a "race crime".
This woman is guilty of Disorderly Conduct.
For disturbing the peace, maybe, but not for "ridicule on account of race, creed or color" (from the exact words of the statute, as posted at #94). That law is just plain wrong.
Farrelly and Satterlee were utterly and thoroughly frustrated. Yea, verily.
Given Mexico's history of dysentery, I've always thought their "Run For The Border" tagline was somewhat racist, not to mention that chihuahua.
What is the standard for conviction under the law you cite? What elements must be present?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The law itself defines the elements that need to be present. Are you asking what specifically constitutes "ridicule" or "holding up to contempt"? I think there are centuries of Anglo-Saxon law that nail down the meanings of those terms, and I'm pretty sure they correspond well to their commonly understood meanings today.
Are words alone sufficient for conviction? If so how are those words described? You seem to not understand the concept of 'elements', those are the exact things that must be proven for a conviction and are usually quite specific.
The language of the statute would strongly lead to that conclusion.
If so how are those words described?
Absent any further statutory language, they'd be described in the same way they were described under the old English laws against holding the King up to ridicule or contempt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.