Court Rules for Man Arrested for Cursing

AP ^ | 020207 | JEFF KAROUB

[Artemis Webb]

DETROIT (AP) - An officer who arrested a man for cursing in a public meeting violated the man's right to free speech, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision that Montrose Township police officer Stephen Robinson had probable cause to arrest Thomas Leonard in 2002 when Leonard cursed while addressing the township board.

"It cannot be seriously contended that any reasonable peace officer, or citizen, for that matter, would believe that mild profanity while peacefully advocating a political position could constitute a criminal act," the three-judge panel wrote in Friday's decision.

"All our client did was get up at a public meeting and express himself vigorously, and he was arrested for it," said Glen Lenhoff, Leonard's attorney.

At the time, Leonard's wife, Sarah, was suing the township over a towing contract. Thomas Leonard accused the board members in the meeting of cheating his family and saying, "That's why you're in a g*ddamn lawsuit."

[Artemis Webb]

I have mixed feelings about this but generally speaking sometimes language that is colorful is the only way to get someones attention.

[yoe]

The man was swearing, not cussing. Swearing is one thing but cussing can be down right poetic.

[SteveMcKing]

I nearly cursed at some protesters once. Stopped myself for this very reason.


Now I yell "Allah Akbar!", in satirical mockery of left-wing war protests.


This, too, may not be entirely safe should it be misunderstood by observant policemen.

[metmom]

Free speech; unless a liberal doesn't like it.

[Revolting cat!]

Sheesh, the arresting officer must have just landed on a time machine from the year 1936!

[Buckhead]

Well, it's a good thing for the man that he wasn't using the name of a federal candidate within 60 days of a federal election!! Because that's a felony!! As long as he's merely screaming obscenities, making vulgar gestures, etc., he's protected by the comforting embrace of the 1st Amendment.

Is this a great country or what?

[gcruse]

And it only took five years from the incident to this ruling! Is this a great country or...or a pot of litigation gold?

[JoeSixPack1]

"That's why you're in a g*ddamn lawsuit."

He said God! OMG!!

[lightman]

"That's why you're in a g*ddamn lawsuit."

He said God! OMG!!

Unfortunately, for many folks their real god whose sacred name one should not say is F***

[Beagle8U]

It was rather silly to arrest him or drag it out in court.

It was settled law right in this state a few years back.

A guy was in a canoe with friends ( likely drunk) cussing up a storm with women and children in the area.

He was given a fine, but took it to court and the judge ruled because he wasn't swearing directly to the kids it was freedom of speech. This guys language was much worse.

It was a big issue and on all the news programs and papers.

[California Patriot]

If that's all he said, then his rights were violated the ruling is correct. If he had said a lot more, it would have changed the tenor of the meeting and created an intimidating and undignified atmosphere. His rights would not have been violated the ruling would have been wrong.

[spinestein]

[it's a good thing for the man that he wasn't using the name of a federal candidate within 60 days of a federal election!! Because that's a felony!! As long as he's merely screaming obscenities, making vulgar gestures, etc., he's protected by the comforting embrace of the 1st Amendment.]



I was thinking of screaming obscenities at some politicians and I wonder if THAT would be OK, or would it still depend on whether or not it was within 60 days of a federal election.

I'd should call Senators McCain and Feingold on the phone and ask them about it, but I'd probably end up using obscenities.

[SunkenCiv]

to the board:

---

Go buy yourself a sense of humor!

---