Skip to comments.
WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 'RACIST LANGUAGE' AT TACO BELL
Drudge Report ^
| February 3, 2006
Posted on 02/03/2006 11:07:42 AM PST by Irontank
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-163 next last
To: BinaryBoy
I vaguely remember that a few years ago the Supreme Court ruled calling a law enforcement officer an emeffer and giving them a middle finger salute was "Free Speech."
If its good enough for LEOs, it should be good enough for all others.
141
posted on
02/03/2006 5:54:19 PM PST
by
rw4site
(Little men want Big Government!)
To: Irontank
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.
To: El Gato
I resemble that remark!
Heh, so do I.
=-)
143
posted on
02/03/2006 6:11:30 PM PST
by
Dr.Zoidberg
(Mohammedism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
To: narses; edwin hubble
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.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.
144
posted on
02/04/2006 10:45:19 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: Irontank
Farrelly and Satterlee were utterly and thoroughly frustrated. Yea, verily.
145
posted on
02/04/2006 10:50:12 AM PST
by
Tall_Texan
(The Democrat Party - emboldened by Hamas to combine terrorism with politics.)
To: martin_fierro
Viewed in a certain light, Taco Bell food is an ethnic slur. Given Mexico's history of dysentery, I've always thought their "Run For The Border" tagline was somewhat racist, not to mention that chihuahua.
146
posted on
02/04/2006 10:53:17 AM PST
by
Tall_Texan
(The Democrat Party - emboldened by Hamas to combine terrorism with politics.)
To: inquest
What is the standard for conviction under the law you cite? What elements must be present?
147
posted on
02/04/2006 7:45:45 PM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
To: narses
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.
148
posted on
02/05/2006 8:12:30 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
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.
149
posted on
02/05/2006 9:13:55 AM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
To: narses
Are words alone sufficient for conviction?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.
150
posted on
02/05/2006 10:47:41 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
Have you actually READ the statute? Can you post it?
151
posted on
02/05/2006 10:50:40 AM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
To: narses
I'm pretty sure that what I posted at #94 is the statute.
152
posted on
02/05/2006 10:58:34 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
I missed that, thank you. In the statute, the word 'advertisement' strikes me as interesting. Does this regulate commercial speech? If so, where is the commercial nexus?
153
posted on
02/05/2006 11:17:07 AM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
To: narses
I didn't realize you hadn't seen it. Now I know why we were talking past each other. Anyway, I don't know exactly how "advertisement" is supposed to be interpreted in this sense, now that you mention it. I figured it probably meant any open, public statement, but
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines it as, "A 'notice' published either in handbills or in a newspaper." Granted this definition was pre-radio, but still, it seems that violation of a law against some form of "advertisement" would have to come under the laws of libel, rather than the laws of slander.
Maybe my initial reaction was right, and this story's bogus.
154
posted on
02/05/2006 1:39:40 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
Regulating commercial speech is far less worrisome, imho, than regulating all speech. The former is probably defensible, the latter clearly abridges the 1st Ammendment. I suspect the prosecutor goofed, or the story is bogus.
155
posted on
02/05/2006 2:57:30 PM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
Comment #156 Removed by Moderator
To: gondramB
""Maybe we should outlaw all ridicule"
But then DU weould be out of business.... :)"
So would FreeRepublic. :(
157
posted on
02/06/2006 11:41:17 PM PST
by
bigdcaldavis
("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
To: VeniVidiVici
"charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color and second-degree breach of peace.
So sayeth the Ministry of Love."
[voice on loudspeaker from telescreen] ROOM 101!
158
posted on
02/06/2006 11:46:44 PM PST
by
bigdcaldavis
("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
To: kentj
"Dam this coffee is to hot"
Stop talking negatively about coffee.....you might offend Juan Valdez. :)
159
posted on
02/06/2006 11:52:15 PM PST
by
bigdcaldavis
("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
To: inquest
"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.)"
A clearly unconstitutional law. Any activist judge who would uphold this law is an abomination. Oops! I just offended the activist judges! Room 101 for me!
160
posted on
02/06/2006 11:54:41 PM PST
by
bigdcaldavis
("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-163 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson