First Amendment, I hardly knew yee...

LordofHellFire · Post by **LordofHellFire** » Sat May 15, 2004 2:18 pm

Police told him he couldn't display the sign. Van den Bosch then changed the sign to say "Free Us G W" and added "End the Occupation" on the back, referring to the war in Iraq.
......
Police then handcuffed him and took him to the police station, where he was photographed, fingerprinted, cited $243 for disorderly conduct and released. Van den Bosch said he hasn't paid the fine.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/dulut ... 664932.htm

Anyone want to tell me what happened to the concept of free speech?

[BH]SharpShooter · Post by **[BH]SharpShooter** » Sat May 15, 2004 2:35 pm

Tom Clancy's Op-Center wrote:It died with Superman, my friend. And when they brought him back, they forgot about [free speech].

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat May 15, 2004 11:16 pm

Like little children know what F U G W stands for. He should sue.

small pox · Post by **small pox** » Sat May 15, 2004 11:17 pm

That was me.

Denali · Post by **Denali** » Sat May 15, 2004 11:20 pm

They were well within their right to arrest him. The man purposely put the letters ree and s in tiny print. The sign was intended to say F*** You GW from a distance.

The man was arrested for disorderly conduct. In Montfort, WI, the law states

http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/ ... e=Document

947.01 Disorderly conduct. Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

*Ding* *Ding*

Simple hint. Don't be a jackass and you don't get in trouble.

Denali

LordofHellFire · Post by **LordofHellFire** » Sun May 16, 2004 12:04 am

He was well within the confines of orderly conduct. You are right he did purposely use the ree and s in small letters, but he also purposely used F U G W in the first place in order to not "cross the line" as it were. If other people can make the link between the acronym then they already know what it is and therefore can not be tainted by it. The only reason that person would complain was if the message itself didn't sit well with him/her. Fortunately, this is something that is protected as a basic civil right. At least, it was supposed to be.

theGimpboy · Post by **theGimpboy** » Sun May 16, 2004 1:46 am

The Duluth Times? You read the Duluth times?

[BH]SharpShooter · Post by **[BH]SharpShooter** » Sun May 16, 2004 1:51 am

Thing is, technically it's not truly profane, as it didn't have any profanities in it. The ree/s are well within the law---it's his "Fine Print".

Denali · Post by **Denali** » Sun May 16, 2004 4:11 am

A shop owner complained about the sign so the police asked him to not use it. He then used it again as the motorcade passed. He was a jackass and got arrested. He got what was coming to him.

Denali

small pox · Post by **small pox** » Sun May 16, 2004 12:38 pm

Denali I think that means do not create a scene in public. It doesn't seem like he was creating a disturbance either. It could also be argued that the sign might have stood for something else.

Denali · Post by **Denali** » Sun May 16, 2004 1:50 pm

Further down on the page I linked to disorderly conduct.

947.01 - ANNOT.
Purely written speech, even written speech that fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct, but the state has the burden to prove that the speech is constitutionally unprotected "abusive" conduct. "Abusive" conduct is conduct that is injurious, improper, hurtful, offensive, or reproachful. "True threats" clearly fall within the scope of this definition. State v. Douglas D. 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725.

Denali

LordofHellFire · Post by **LordofHellFire** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:49 pm

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. It is my contention that his acts were neither rude or disorderly. It isn't as if he streaked across the street yelling profanities or anything. He just stood there with a sign to show his disapproval of GW. Hardly an arrestable offense.

Dill · Post by **Dill** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:53 pm

omg Denali, you can be an idiot sometimes. Considering you seem to value american freedom so much you do a damn good job of supporting those who would erode it.

Roll on McArthy

small pox · Post by **small pox** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:30 pm

One of these days, Denali, you will relize how important freedom of speech is. Until then, we need someone to argue with.

GirDraxon · Post by **GirDraxon** » Mon May 17, 2004 8:41 pm

I'm a fence sitter on this one. Again, I don't think there's enough information here, though the police did mention what the primary complaint is.

Personally there's a loss in signal with profanity and abbreviations or slang. Would he have been arrested if he had "GW sucks eggs!" or "Fudge You GW" on his poster? F U commonly refers to the good ole "fuck you", but what about "fudge you!" We all know what I mean when I say it... where do you cross the line of indirect profanity?

My problem is again the with/against the system. The guy was warned twice about the sign, and he did a crappy job attempting to skirt the rules the first time. Next time he should go in the system and extract an apology from the police after his carefully worded argument (or lawyer) proves how out of line the police were, then publish the apology to show that there is justice.

There are rules to society, and you still have to obey the ones that you don't believe in. He should have fought the sign problem offsite instead of compounding his problem by disrespecting an officer of the peace and disregarding official requests to cease and desist. This doesn't mean I think the police officer was in the right about the initial charge of the sign.

I still don't think the US is at the point where we need to fight outside the system (which basically means revolution if you take it to its logical conclusion).