TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:This law has been tested in court many times.

So, how is the vile speech in the SCOTUS case "protected," but the speech in PC42.01 is not?

G26ster wrote:

WildBill wrote:This law has been tested in court many times.

So, how is the vile speech in the SCOTUS case "protected," but the speech in PC42.01 is not?

IANAL, so someone can explain it better than me. Read the law.

tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace

It usually has to do with provoking people into doing something illegal, i.e. inciting a crowd to riot.

WildBill wrote:

G26ster wrote:

WildBill wrote:This law has been tested in court many times.

So, how is the vile speech in the SCOTUS case "protected," but the speech in PC42.01 is not?

IANAL, so someone can explain it better than me. Read the law.

tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace

It usually has to do with provoking people into doing something illegal, i.e. inciting a crowd to riot.

IANAL either, but I have read numerous times on this forum that a person could be arrested under 42.01 for using vile language in public, without any mention of causing a riot or such. I'd be interested in hearing what LEOs or attorneys have to say.

Here is a recent quote from srothstien, a LEO and well respected on this forum, in another thread:

"It is important to note that the language does NOT have to cause a breach of the peace, just tend to. If the language made the security officer mad enough to want to hit you but he restrained himself out of professionalism, then the tendency was there and the ticket is good. But this tendency has to be shown in the report."

That said, I'm sure the language used in the SCOTUS case made folks mad enough, and the "tendency" was there.

G26ster wrote:

WildBill wrote:

G26ster wrote:

WildBill wrote:This law has been tested in court many times.

So, how is the vile speech in the SCOTUS case "protected," but the speech in PC42.01 is not?

IANAL, so someone can explain it better than me. Read the law.

tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace

It usually has to do with provoking people into doing something illegal, i.e. inciting a crowd to riot.

IANAL either, but I have read numerous times on this forum that a person could be arrested under 42.01 for using vile language in public, without any mention of causing a riot or such. I'd be interested in hearing what LEOs have to say.

I'd be interested also, but I think most PC42.01 arrests occur in conjunction with belligerent behavior, simple assault, refusing to leave a premises, or public intoxication, rather than just the words alone.

Wild Bill, I updated my post. It appears language alone is enough according to one respected source.

G26ster wrote:Wild Bill, I updated my post. It appears language alone is enough according to one respected source.

I read that and I respect Mr. Rothstein's knowlege, experience and opinion.

The SCOTUS can pick and chose which cases they will review. They normally choose larger constitutional issues than a security guard wanting to punch someone in the nose for cursing. I think that deciding factor why the Court sided with the protesters is because of the religious implications. Religious freedom is one bright line that they rarely cross. If the protest was from a particularly despised secular group, the decision may have easily gone the other way.

WildBill wrote:

G26ster wrote:Wild Bill, I updated my post. It appears language alone is enough according to one respected source.

I read that and I respect Mr. Rothstein's knowlege, experience and opinion.

The SCOTUS can pick and chose which cases they will review. They normally choose larger constitutional issues than a security guard wanting to punch someone in the nose for cursing. I think that deciding factor why the Court sided with the protesters is because of the religious implications. Religious freedom is one bright line that they rarely cross. If the protest was from a particularly despised secular group, the decision may have easily gone the other way.

When I read the opinions, it seemed to me to be all about speech. However, SCOTUS concluded that the Westboro speech had "special protection" They stated:

"Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “


So I guess if I "cuss out" a politician in public, and make people mad, I should not be arrested under PC 42.01, or tried, as SCOTUS has set a precedent for "special protection.

AndyC wrote:...
I'm saying that their right to freedom of speech should not be allowed to supercede someone else's right not to be forced to listen to it - otherwise our society will just become like a Communist re-education camp, with someone blaring their propaganda/point-of-view at a helpless, captive audience using the excuse of freedom of speech.

I think that the 1000' rule is supposed to take care of this. Provide enough separation so that while the mourner's may know they are there, it's not like they're at the gate. If they are making enough noise so that it is disturbing at that distance then they are probably breaking a noise ordnance.

While I admire what the Patriot Riders are doing, I think what's needed is for the local churches to get active in a loving way. Get as many Christians as you can there to sing hymns, preach love and understanding, and most importantly, to pray over and for the Phelps. No confrontation, no angry words, just show them that no matter how misguided they are, God still loves them and calls to them.

These people have been in action for years in Topeka, Kansas. I've seen them demonstrating outside churches on Sundays and driven by their house (it looks like a fortress). Their little children participate. It's ugly to say the least. I pity them their focus on hate. I have better things to do with my time than hate others.....

At this point I don't know if G26ster and I are agreeing or disagreeing.

G26ster wrote:"Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “

This statement sounds like "weasel words" to me. Does that mean that if the speech was in a private place on a matter that did not concern the public then it would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment. ????

Many people don't realize that Supreme Court decisions are governed by political considerations as well as legal issues.

WildBill wrote:At this point I don't know if G26ster and I are agreeing or disagreeing.

G26ster wrote:"Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “

This statement sounds like "weasel words" to me. Does that mean that if the speech was in a private place on a matter that did not concern the public then it would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment. ????

Many people don't realize that Supreme Court decisions are governed by political considerations as well as legal issues.

Respectfully, I think we're disagreeing, as I don't believe the decision was based on religious freedom, but rather based on speech alone. I also noted that SCOTUS seems to have rules concerning freedom of speech I've not heard of before ("...at a public place on a matter of public concern") to be the basis of their decision, and they called that "protected speech." I do agree that it sounds like "weasel words" to me also.

G26ster wrote:

WildBill wrote:At this point I don't know if G26ster and I are agreeing or disagreeing.

G26ster wrote:"Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “

This statement sounds like "weasel words" to me. Does that mean that if the speech was in a private place on a matter that did not concern the public then it would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment. ????

Many people don't realize that Supreme Court decisions are governed by political considerations as well as legal issues.

Respectfully, I think we're disagreeing, as I don't believe the decision was based on religious freedom, but rather based on speech alone. I also noted that SCOTUS seems to have rules concerning freedom of speech I've not heard of before ("...at a public place on a matter of public concern") to be the basis of their decision, and they called that "protected speech." I do agree that it sounds like "weasel words" to me also.

I am not saying that the decision was based on religious freedom rather than free speech, just that the group who was making the protest was a religous group so the SCOTUS considered this factor in their decision. If the protesting group was a neo-nazi group promoting the overthrow of the government or adovating anarchy would the decision be the same?