Nurse sues over ticket for anti-Bush bumper sticke

[Amelia]

Nurse sues over ticket for anti-Bush bumper sticker

October 16, 2006

CNN.com

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A woman who was ticketed for having an obscene anti-Bush bumper sticker filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday against a county in the state of Georgia and its officials.

Denise Grier, 47, of Athens, Georgia, got a $100 ticket in March after a DeKalb County police officer spotted the bumper sticker, which read "I'm Tired Of All The BUSH**."

A DeKalb judge threw out the ticket in April because the state's lewd decal law that formed the basis for the ticket was ruled unconstitutional in 1990.

Grier is seeking damages from the county for "emotional distress," according to the lawsuit.

Grier also seeks a declaration in federal court that her bumper sticker is considered constitutionally protected speech because she is "uncertain and insecure regarding her right to display her bumper sticker in DeKalb County," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.

Grier, a nurse who works at Emory University and other hospitals, also is seeking punitive damages against the DeKalb police officer who gave her the ticket because he "acted with reckless disregard" of her rights, the lawsuit said.

The state law prohibited lewd or profane stickers and decals on vehicles.

[Neil D]

I hope she wins.....

[Naomi]

I didn't know there was anyone in Georgia who are openly anti-Bush.

{she says as she ducks and runs}

[Dr. Shane]

Sounds like someone with too much time on her hands and too much money in the bank to waste. Oh... no... she isn't wasting her money... the ACLU is picking up the bill. Another frivolus case filed by the ACLU. So now not only do they want to defend pedopheliacs but potty-mouths too. A person can express an opinion without being vulgar. There is absolutely no reason a person has to be vulgar. I hope it goes all the way to the Robert's Supreme Court and we get a ruling against vulgarity.

[Dr. Shane]

I hope they ban the stupid charachter decal that pees on auto logos too. I find that real offiensive.

[Neil D]

You want it established into the constitution that vulgarity is outlawed????

Now that is obscene.....

[Naomi]

What one sees as vulgarity is not necessarily the same as another. I agree it is not something that i care to see when following a slow moving auto. But, when we loose our freedom of speach (and this is a part of that) then anyone can tell us what they want us to say and ultimately think.

Would not be a good thing

[Dr. Shane]

The FCC has defined vulgarity so it is not some gray issue. There are specific words that are forbidden to be used on public radio and TV. Argueing that vulgarity is covered under freedom of speech is like argueing that being able to scream fire in a crowded theater is freedom of speech or burning a cross in your front yard. Freedom of speech allows us to express ideas and dissent but does not allow us hurt others.

[Naomi]

As you wish ...

[D. Allan]

Quote:

What one sees as vulgarity is not necessarily the same as another.

Paul (the apostle) says that to the pure in mind (or is it heart) all things are pure.

It's hard to see that some times. But, he's right! Vulgarity does not exist on its own apart from our mind. For instance humor. Sometimes we just don't get it.

Maybe we respond with the judgement that something is vulgar when it touches something within us that we are ashamed of?

The root meaning of 'vulgar' is from Latin 'vulgus' - pertaining to the 'common people.' Unrefined, booish, uncultured. Just because something is unrefined doesn't make it obscene, does it?

To me the problem that the bumper sticker is refering to is what is really offensive - not the the sticker itself.

[Naomi]

I suppose I can be pretty dense at times, but I had to read the bumper sticker three times to see what was vulgar in it.

[Dr. Shane]

I am surprised a court actually ruled it unconstitutional to ban vulgarity in public venues, like bumperstickers. Many words are banned by the FCC - ask Howard Stern. Cigarette advertising is banned from TV and restricted in other venues. Adult industry advertising is also restricted. Political speech is restricted within 30 days of an election on TV and radio. So there are various precidents to justify limitting freedom of speech.

The First Ammendments gives us a right to express ourselves but the government can limit the ways we do that. Not being able to burn a cross in my front yard is a fine example.

[Dr. Shane]

This is from the Athens Banner-Herald .

Quote:

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled more than a decade ago that the law against lewd bumper stickers is unconstitutional, according to the American Civil Liberties Union...

While Grier argues her bumper sticker is political speech protected by the First Amendment, the case that challenged the lewd decal law didn't involve such a serious message. In 1991, the ACLU backed a motorist who was cited for a "S--- happens bumper sticker.

The court called the decal law vague and overly broad.

The current edition of the Georgia Law Enforcement Handbook, which officers rely on, doesn't mention that the decal law was overturned.

So it was the Georgia Supreme Court that overturned the law because it was "vague and overly broad." If the law was rewritten with specific words that are not allowed, it is likely it would not be overturned. But as written it is hard for the citizen to know what is acceptable and what isn't.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Many words are banned by the FCC - ask Howard Stern. Cigarette advertising is banned from TV and restricted in other venues. Adult industry advertising is also restricted. Political speech is restricted within 30 days of an election on TV and radio. So there are various precidents to justify limitting freedom of speech.

Please note what the FCC is-

About the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

[one of the offices of the FCC]

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau -[color:#CC0000] educates and informs consumers about telecommunications goods and services and engages their input to help guide the work of the Commission. CGB coordinates telecommunications policy efforts with industry and with other governmental agencies — federal, tribal, state and local — in serving the public interest.

The FCC regulates goods and services in the telecommunication industry, not an individual's free speech. A lot of what we see regulated is "telecommunications goods and services". Not free speech. I know that there is an overlap here, but I will let that lie with the FCC.

Quote:

The First Ammendments gives us a right to express ourselves but the government can limit the ways we do that. Not being able to burn a cross in my front yard is a fine example

Excellant example. Therefore, personal trucks with images of something being peed upon is also free speech...and therefore should not be limited.

[Dr. Shane]

I suspect if the law was written correctly it would hold up to the Constitutional test. Freedom of speech doesn't give anyone the right to cuss someone else out.

[Naomi]

Quote:

Freedom of speech doesn't give anyone the right to cuss someone else out.

No one wants to be cussed out. No one should be cussed out. But, is it illegal?

[Dr. Shane]

Can the government pass laws stating that people cannot put bumper stickers on their cars that say things with the "F" word? I don't think restricting that is an issue of freedom of speech. I don't want to explain that word to my 6 year when he is learning to read.

Hate speech can be limitted. Shouldn't it be illegal to put a bumper sticker on our cars that says, "I hate ni**ers"

Like I said, if written propperly, I am sure the law would stand up in court.

[Neil D]

Commerance can be regulated. Bumper Stickers are commerance. Bumper stickers can be regulated.

So, yeah, what can be said can be regulated. And free speech can be curtailed, such that, it isn't as free as once thought...

And those values that curtail free speech, can be broken as a form of free speech...much to the chagrin of those stuffy headed "value ridden" people who are really into control and manipulation of the minds of others...aka religious people...who are truely into the very thing that God is not....control and manipulation of the minds....

[Naomi]

Shane, I agree with you; to an extent. However, when the government begins to ban what can be spoken or printed it is only a matter of time before someone in power decides that you can or can not say something that, to you, is harmless.

Too much legislation, too many laws, too much big government is not a good thing. Too much power breeds corruption ... and we have more than enough already; corruption, that is!

I understand about explaining to children … however, the bigger issue the parent (or adult) makes of something on a bumper sticker, road sign, etc., which the child most often will not notice, the more “interesting” it will be to the child. Just my 2-cents.

~~~~~~~~~~~`

This may be However, we have so many laws on the books now. They can't enforce them. Our courts are backed up for months and years. Let's have fewer laws and more personal responsibility. I know you will disagree, but you can not legislate morality, class, personal responsibility … or really anything. People are going to do what they want in spite of the laws on the books. Doubt it; look at the amount of drug and alcohol use. Consider the number of violent crimes which increase each year. The number of children abused or killed. The number of wives and husbands abused or killed.

Let’s choose our battles wisely, in the safety and interest of all citizens.

Some of the religious bumper stickers I see are personally rather offensive, judgmental and over bearing. Moderation in all things.

Or the billboards: How do you explain to a 5 year old child the huge billboards which depict the rapture?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Too much legislation, too many laws, too much big government is not a good thing.

This is a libertarian viewpoint. I understand the position but am much more moderate. I think the government can be a force for good without being overbearing and believe the US is historically a fine example of that.

Quote:

Let's have fewer laws and more personal responsibility. I know you will disagree, but you can not legislate morality, class, personal responsibility …

We can't make a deadbeat dad pay child support so why should we pass a law about it? Either he is going to be responsible or he isn't. We can't legislate personal responsiblity. Is that right?

The way I see it is that we can't pass a law that isn't a result of someone's morality. Laws are always connected to morality in one way or the other.

[Naomi]

Quote:

I think the government can be a force for good without being overbearing and believe the US is historically a fine example of that.

It is a good theory. And, historically ,I agree that is a relatively true statement. However, things are changing.

[Neil D]

Quote:

We can't make a deadbeat dad pay child support so why should we pass a law about it? Either he is going to be responsible or he isn't. We can't legislate personal responsiblity. Is that right?

The way I see it is that we can't pass a law that isn't a result of someone's morality. Laws are always connected to morality in one way or the other.

Oh, come on, Shane...The laws are not there because of someone's morality...They are there because of what is determine as fair, or just, which admitedly, changes upon the understanding of people and thier personal responsiblity.

We make deadbeat dad's pay child support, because it is fair to the child that the dad take responsiblity in the care of HIS child that HE created. That's what is fair, it's not morality. Now, if the man was moral, not only would he pay child support, but he would spend time with the child, and shape and help the child grow and learn...

[Naomi]

Quote:

Oh, come on, Shane...The laws are not there because of someone's morality...They are there because of what is determine as fair, or just, which admitedly, changes upon the understanding of people and thier personal responsiblity.

Thank you Neil. The defense rests.

[Dr. Shane]

Ummm, the words fair, just and good are words to describe what is moral. There is no getting away from it. Laws have their foundation in morality. To say we make a man pay child support becuase it is fair and just is another way to say we make a man pay child support because it is moral. It is a moral obligation that we, as society, make his legal obligation.

[Naomi]

A rose by any other name ...

moral or legal, the problem is that you can't pass enough laws, have enough judges and court rooms, build enough jails and prisons to make people do "the right" thing(s).

You can pass enough laws, which have enough loop-holes in them to give the "upper-crust", "moral majority" or anything other label you wish to use, the advantage of using the laws to their benefit.

Everyone is not ethical; dis-honesty and curruption exist in the higher court rooms, in the top offices of our government ... everywhere.

If you are rich and can hire the best attorneys in the land and are guilty, and go to court against a poor person who has to use a court appointed attorney ... the average time a court appointed attorney spends with his/her cllient is 10 mi prior to going to court ... who do you think will win the case??

Do you realize that at this very moment, typing this on the wwweb is not smart. So, one more time I pushed the envelop.