Washington State Supreme Court rules that the First Amendment protects the yelling of obscenities at
10 replies, posted
[url]http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jun/25/first-amendment-protects-profanity-against-police/[/url]
[quote=The Spokesman-Review/AP]The Washington Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a citizen has the First Amendment right to call police abusive names and yell profanity while they’re investigating a crime.
The court threw out the conviction of a juvenile, identified only by the initials E.J.J., who yelled at officers while they tried to take his intoxicated sister into custody.
“While E.J.J.’s words may have been disrespectful, discourteous and annoying, they are nonetheless constitutionally protected,” Associate Chief Justice Charles Johnson wrote for the six-justice majority. When citizens exercise their right to criticize “how the police are handling a situation, they cannot be concerned about risking a criminal conviction for obstruction.”[/quote]
Good, if everyone else can swap obscenities then why the hell are the police so special.
[QUOTE=Megadave;48059226]Good, if everyone else can swap obscenities then why the hell are the police so special.[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure if you where trying to do your job in a public place and someone started yelling and cursing at you there would be a problem. I understand the ruling though
Officers are now legally obligated to one-up any insults directed at them.
I find that weird, like if you just walked into McDonald's and began throwing a huge tantrum because you were 3 minutes late for the breakfast menu, you'd be arrested. But now if you do the same thing to a cop, it's okay?
I would have thought that yelling profanities in public fell under disturbing the peace, but I guess it doesn't. Huh.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48059550]I find that weird, like if you just walked into McDonald's and began throwing a huge tantrum because you were 3 minutes late for the breakfast menu, you'd be arrested. But now if you do the same thing to a cop, it's okay?[/QUOTE]
No you wouldn't, you'd be asked to leave private property and then arrested if you refused to comply.
Honestly, this is probably pretty important. If they voted any other way on this, it'd be troubling.
However, just because you can doesn't mean you should.
[QUOTE=OvB;48059906]However, just because you can doesn't mean you should.[/QUOTE]
Lots of Americans have this weird idea that because something is a right means that it HAS to be exercised. It's silly.
Maybe will cut down on all those superfulus "obstruction of justice" charges but people should still behave around cops, they do have a tough job.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.