Ever have one of these ***** experiences?

[Skwim]

Exactly, he legitimately has that authority. He may have been mistaken on a point of law but that doesn't make it an abuse of power. Police officers have the right, indeed the duty, to make an assessment of a situation based on their understanding of the law and respond appropriately.

He had the option of contacting his superior for clarification, but took it upon himself to state that she was in violation of the obscenity law, when no such law existed. Giving the finger, flipping the bird, giving a finger wave, or whatever else you choose to call it is not against the law.

Writing the actual ticket or formally reporting the alledged offence to the prosecuting authorities.

FYI, prosecutors don't care about reports. They care about bringing cases before the court.

That's one person's opinion based on case law that doesn't quite match this case.

It's not an opinion. It's the law. In the article Executive Director Esman said:

"The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal, which presides over Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi, has specifically commented on the protected expressive nature of a middle finger extended in defiance or protest."
​

Look it up if you doubt it.

The question of whether this specific case falls within the legal exceptions to free speech within that juristiction and in the context of US federal law could only be confirmed by legal rulings on this specific case.

It already has.

 

[dawny0826]

While his job does included investigating complaints, it also includes knowing the law well enough to not misapply it.

Obscenity law is a gray area - even with the Supreme Court.

I don't dispute the home owner's legal right to express herself through her light display. But, I do support law enforcement's request to remove that which can be construed as a disruption of peace.

I could run around my neighborhood screaming an obscenity and I'm liable to have the cops called on me for disrupting my nieghborhood. At minimum, I'm going to be asked to stop. I have the legal freedom to say what I want to say. I don't however, have the legal freedom to disturb other people.

Lines can easily be blurred. Without voice - her light display has the same impact on her neighorhood.

Despite what you may think, and how big a fan you are of practicality and common sense, the law of the land says that law enforcement is out of bounds to require removal of such display.

Read what I said. I don't think that law enforcement is out of bounds to request removal of such a display. Whether lawful or not...I will not scoff at such a request as I think it reasonable, given the fact that legally, her actions could be construed as an infringement of others rights.

Check out this case...(source: Obscenity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

• FCC v. Pacifica (1978) (external link) better known as the landmark "seven dirty words" case. In that ruling, the Court found that only "repetitive and frequent" use of the words in a time or place when a minor could hear can be punished.

This is an example of how the Supreme Court interprets obscenity law.

Think about it. How does having a light display that essentially says "screw you" to anyone who happens to drive by differ from saying such repeatedly? What about minors? What about people who have nothing to do with the conflict?

Are there lines that can be crossed?

Just another perspective.

Assuming your "you" here refers to those "giving some crap," you're correct, but then nobody is disputing this.

I was referring to the home owner as well.

 

[Me Myself]

There is no reason why they cant arrange lights in such manner. It´s their private property. There is no depiction of nudity (that I think is against the law to display publicly?) and as long as it is not a direct call to illegal actions, free speech must be respected.

under what charges exactly could they force them to re-arrange the lights? and if it is "public decency" or something, which is the precise wording of such law?

It´s a friggin hand sign. Some people are just too sensible.

edit: obsenity laws? if there is a specific outline of the words and signs that cannot be displayed then they would have a case if the hand sign was specifically referred to.

 

[Me Myself]

wait a second... part of the definition of "obsenity" is that it cannot be artistic?

Pff, she only needs to say the flipping hand symbolises the decline of the values of christimas by the consumist capitalism or some **** like that and wuala! it is art.

Seriously, just some lights.

 

[Skwim]

Obscenity law is a gray area - even with the Supreme Court.

To some extent, yes, but as to "flipping the bird" the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled it isn't unlawful.

I don't dispute the home owner's legal right to express herself through her light display. But, I do support law enforcement's request to remove that which can be construed as a disruption of peace.

Problem was, it wasn't a request but a threatening demand. "it must come down, or else."

I could run around my neighborhood screaming an obscenity and I'm liable to have the cops called on me for disrupting my nieghborhood. At minimum, I'm going to be asked to stop. I have the legal freedom to say what I want to say. I don't however, have the legal freedom to disturb other people.

See the difference between saying and displaying below. *

Lines can easily be blurred. Without voice - her light display has the same impact on her neighorhood.

No it doesn't . Again, see the difference between saying and displaying below. *

Read what I said. I don't think that law enforcement is out of bounds to request removal of such a display.

Yes, I know that's what you said. Too bad he didn't leave it at a simple request, but made it a demand.

Whether lawful or not...I will not scoff at such a request as I think it reasonable, given the fact that legally, her actions could be construed as an infringement of others rights.

But the courts---the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to be specific---has said that it isn't. Giving the bird is protected speech.

Check out this case...(source: Obscenity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

• FCC v. Pacifica (1978) (external link) better known as the landmark "seven dirty words" case. In that ruling, the Court found that only "repetitive and frequent" use of the words in a time or place when a minor could hear can be punished.

This is an example of how the Supreme Court interprets obscenity law.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. In fact, the issue was even referenced in the movie All That Jazz.

Think about it. How does having a light display that essentially says "screw you" to anyone who happens to drive by differ from saying such repeatedly?

* For one thing, it differs in the fact that it's just about impossible to escape sound, whereas one can easily avert their eyes from a display.

What about minors? What about people who have nothing to do with the conflict?

What about them? Giving the finger is free speech regardless of who sees it.

I was referring to the home owner as well.

In that case, when you said " Do you have the freedom to do it? Abso-freakin-lutely," you're saying she had the freedom to put up her "finger lights."

 

[HonestJoe]

He had the option of contacting his superior for clarification, but took it upon himself to state that she was in violation of the obscenity law, when no such law existed. Giving the finger, flipping the bird, giving a finger wave, or whatever else you choose to call it is not against the law.

This isn't about a "hand signal", it's about a light display on a domestic house. I'm sure the state does have obscenity laws, the question is whether this case falls within their scope.

Regardless, I'm not saying the police officer can't have been mistaken, I'm saying he wasn't abusing his power even if he was mistaken. If a police officer believes someone is breaking the law, they have the power to tell them to stop doing it under the threat of legal consequences.

 

[dawny0826]

In that case, when you said " Do you have the freedom to do it? Abso-freakin-lutely," you're saying she had the freedom to put up her "finger lights."

Yes. She's free to put up the light display.

My difference in opinion is that I don't feel like bashing the cop for his ingnorance. Additionally, I'm acknowledging the grey areas that exist with enforcing and interpreting obscenity law and I think that citizens have the responsibility to exercise good judgement when exercising their freedoms.

I'm not saying that the homeowner was wrong. I'm just not a fan of her actions.

 

[trot-trot]

I am not sure what I believe. One one hand we have the right to express ourselves through art, satire, creativity and what other mediums exist to make a point. But on the other hand obscene gesturs are not proper in a decent society especially when unprovoked. If the allow this how far can it go? Will they allow people to put up swastikas as a "message" to Jewish neighbors?

I can see both sides in this case.

 

[Falvlun]

Anyone else find it strange that obsenity should be protected by freedom of speech? I mean, if I paint various 4 letter words on my garage door, should that be protected? I don't see how it really cramps my ability to express myself by banning public displays of obsenities.

But, on the other hand, I found the light display hilarious.

 

[Skwim]

Anyone else find it strange that obsenity should be protected by freedom of speech?

No. That a community has the right to be offended by what I say should not enable it to censor it. I see no sense of "offended" to be worthy of denying one of the right of free speech.

I mean, if I paint various 4 letter words on my garage door, should that be protected?

Yes.

I don't see how it really cramps my ability to express myself by banning public displays of obsenities.

That's you. Perhaps for others it does cramp their ability to express themselves. I'm sure you don't expect the rest of the world to adhere to your abilities or lack there of.

 

[Falvlun]

No. That a community has the right to be offended by what I say should not enable it to censor it. I see no sense of "offended" to be worthy of denying one of the right of free speech.

Yes.

That's you. Perhaps for others it does cramp their ability to express themselves. I'm sure you don't expect the rest of the world to adhere to your abilities or lack there of, do you?

Living in society means that you don't have full freedoms as you would if you were living in the woods all by yourself. And I really am not going to cry over the loss of the freedom to make public displays of obsenities. I'd be just fine if such displays were banned. If you can't express yourself without it, then you need to go back to school or read some books.

 

[Skwim]

Living in society means that you don't have full freedoms as you would if you were living in the woods all by yourself.

Not society, but community, which is how the law frames obscenity. And, if you're living in the woods all by yourself then you're not living in a community, which is a requisite condition for considering the issue.

And I really am not going to cry over the loss of the freedom to make public displays of obsenities. I'd be just fine if such displays were banned.

Okay.

If you can't express yourself without it, then you need to go back to school or read some books.

Fortunately, we don't require formal education as a qualification for the protection of our Constitutional rights.

 

[Falvlun]

Fortunately, we don't require formal education as a qualification for the protection of our Constitutional rights.

I don't think obscenity should be a constitutional right. I can't think of one reason that makes it necessary or desirable.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think obscenity should be a constitutional right.

Whereas I do.

I can't think of one reason that makes it necessary or desirable.

So you think this should be a qualifying criterion? An act must be necessary or desirable in order to be protected by the Constitution? Somehow I don't think the founders of the country would agree. As for some "one reason," I think you're confused about where the responsibility lies. We don't hold things to be illegal until they prove themselves legal. We hold hold things to be legal until they're proved to be illegal. HUGE difference. It's one akin to being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

[Falvlun]

Whereas I do.

So you think this should be a qualifying criterion? An act must be necessary or desirable in order to be protected by the Constitution? Somehow I don't think the founders of the country would agree. As for some "one reason," I think you're confused about where the responsibility lies. We don't hold things to be illegal until they prove themselves legal. We hold hold things to be legal until they're proved to be illegal. HUGE difference. It's one akin to being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Certain public displays of obscenity are considered illegal. I don't see why, say renting out a billboard with the word **** on it, should be considered an exception.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Certain public displays of obscenity are considered illegal. I don't see why, say renting out a billboard with the word **** on it, should be considered an exception.

I believe the tricky part is deciding what is or isn't "obscene." What is the difference between, say, the word 'poop' and the S-word except for how they are perceived by most people? They both essentially mean the same thing, but for some reason, one isn't considered nearly as 'obscene' as the other.

I'm not sure where the line would be drawn if public displays of certain words were made illegal on grounds of "obscenity," as it doesn't seem to me that there's a logical backing for excluding specific words and illegalizing public displays of them purely based on how they are perceived by most people in a given society.

 

[Falvlun]

I believe the tricky part is deciding what is or isn't "obscene." What is the difference between, say, the word 'poop' and the S-word except for how they are perceived by most people? They both essentially mean the same thing, but for some reason, one isn't considered nearly as 'obscene' as the other.

I'm not sure where the line would be drawn if public displays of certain words were made illegal on grounds of "obscenity," as it doesn't seem to me that there's a logical backing for excluding specific words and illegalizing public displays of them purely based on how they are perceived by most people in a given society.

That's a fair criticism. But, then again, I don't think it really needs to be made all that difficult. I mean, we have a filter on RF... it's not too hard to know which words should be filtered and which shouldn't.