Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-5051-100101-150151-163 last
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”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

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”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

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”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: BinaryBoy

"If the Supreme Court doesn't throw this law out, we are no better than the old Soviet Union."

Fix0r3d


161 posted on 02/06/2006 11:58:00 PM PST by bigdcaldavis ("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Folks, it all started in 2004 with the Philadelphia 11. Next thing you know, vegetarians, vegans, ARAs, and PeTA-heads will have ConsumerFreedom.com shut down for "hate speech against us".


162 posted on 02/07/2006 12:02:00 AM PST by bigdcaldavis ("HYAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean; Xandros - Linux Made Easy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Did she call the Chihuahua a weiner dog?


163 posted on 02/07/2006 12:08:51 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson