BrazosDog02 said:

---

I'm sure the sheriff s a fine fellow but j bet he's going to soon regret even touching this can of worms with a 10 foot pole.

---

He's been getting calls already. He doesn't have a lotof choice.

This guy cut me off on 59 like a week ago!

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

I've seen that truck... Can't remember what highway I was on. I think it was 59 just inside the Beltway. I tried to get a pic, but didn't want it to be obvious. Guy looked like a short fuse.

---

Not a guy.
http://kxan.com/2017/11/16/woman-refuses-to-remove-crude-anti-trump-message-from-pickup/

Thats silly.
If someone vndalizes her truck or worse, attacks her, nobody is going to blame the cops for not making her remove the sticker.

Seriously, b/c I don't know, why is the "and **** you too" part not a violation of disorderly conduct?

Deats said:

---

Seriously, b/c I don't know, why is the "and **** you too" part not a violation of disorderly conduct?

---

For two reasons. First, because it doesn't incite an immediate breach of the peace. If the driver were to be standing face-to-face with someone and scream "F YOU" into that person's face, that could be seen to reasonably incite an immediate breach of the peace (a fight). In this case, the sticker is almost exactly like flipping someone the bird on the highway. While it may lead to some fight in some cases, it just doesn't rise to the level of something that would reasonably incite an immediate breach of the peace. Evidence for that is that there have been no actual fights caused by this, as far as we know.

Second, and far more importantly, even if it did violate the disorderly conduct law, application of that law to suppress political speech has been held to be a clear violation of the First Amendment. The law itself is not un-Constitutional, the application of the law in these circumstances would be un-Constitutional. Sassapis cited the right case earlier in this thread: Cohen v. California. In that case, a man was arrested for wearing a jacket emblazoned with "F*** the Draft" across the back into a courthouse. The state made arguments about how it wasn't appropriate because of where he was, how children could be exposed to it, etc., and the Supreme Court said that didn't matter. In free speech jurisprudence, political speech is given the highest possible protection, and his jacket was political speech. Here, the sticker actually says "and F*** you for voting for him," which is undeniably political speech. Had they left out the "if you voted for him" part, maybe you can make the argument that it isn't and a lower form of scrutiny should be applied to determine whether it can be suppressed. Since that is included, though, every lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you that's an easy case of violating free speech. Whether he intended to "have a talk" or even to replace parts of the sticker or not is immaterial; the post itself threatens legal retribution for speech, and that's a crystal clear violation of this person's Constitutional rights.

It should also be noted that, presumably after getting a call from the DA, the sheriff has now deleted the post.

(Edited to correct the quote from the sticker)

I'm guessing she is okay with getting door dings, nails in her tires and new rock chips in her windshield.

Play stupid games....

So if it said "**** Titleist and if you Hit Titliests, **** you too" that wouldn't be more gray bc it's not political?

Correct.

malenurse said:

---

Karma wins again.

And the husband, who has title to the truck, was also arrested for outstanding warrants.

Parents of the Year nominees.

---

Nail that sticks out gets hammered

How did the sherriff's office not know who the owners of the truck were? I'm sure they've gotten more than one compliant with the full LP.

I guess from the looks of it, they didn't do anything until ABC went and met with them, then they decided to look into whether or not they had any warrants or anything?

I live in FBC this looks to me like the Sheriff's office has some serious egg on its face.

They didn't even investigate the truck owner until it got on the local news, AFTER they've received "numerous" calls.

So Nehls puts out a statement that "they want to have a word with the owner" abc 13 calls and interviews the owners, FBC THEN decides maybe they should look these fine folks up and holy smokes they both have active warrants.

If the FBC sheriffs office was gonna bluff that they are the tough guys they should have just done the warrant search immediately.

This is glorious to me and a little frightening that It proves the point that if the law wants you to be in trouble, they have a law book thick enough to find SOMETHING. In this case they didn't have to dig far.

This is pretty much like getting busted for possesion of pot over a broken tail light. Keep your **** together, stay out of trouble. Even the gangbangers know this...."it's the popo...be cool muthafuca..be cool."

When does it cross the line from freedom of speech to public lewdness? If the guy was driving or walking down the street verbally shouting what was on the window does it violate the law? If the message was in video format would it be against the law? If your literate, that message is very explicate. What's the difference of him putting a flat screen tv in his window showing hard core sex between say a Mexican immigrant screwing a Donald Trump look alike? If you can read, its a similar message in just a different format.

My 10 year old can read that message. In another year my 5 year will be able to. Why can a person put a vulgar and lewd message and writing out there where I now have to explain the birds and bees to my kids before they really need to know about things like that? Take the profanity out of the message and I have no problem with it, but as it is, he is forcing what I consider a lewd act/message upon my young children. He is taking away the choice and imposing the lewd/explicate message on everybody in a public venue. The public and explicate display of the message should make it illegal in my opinion.

Ag97 said:

---

When does it cross the line from freedom of speech to public lewdness? If the guy was driving or walking down the street verbally shouting what was on the window does it violate the law? If the message was in video format would it be against the law? If your literate, that message is very explicate. What's the difference of him putting a flat screen tv in his window showing hard core sex between say a Mexican immigrant screwing a Donald Trump look alike? If you can read, its a similar message in just a different format.

---

Public lewdness relates to performing a sex act in a public place. There's no line between that and freedom of speech because they are in no way related. If he was walking down the street shouting the same words that were on the sticker, that would be protected speech. Same for video. Printed words and displaying a hard core sex act are in no way related; the former is protected political speech and the latter is public lewdness. Those things are not similar messages in a different format - they're completely different in almost every way.

Quote:

---

My 10 year old can read that message. In another year my 5 year will be able to. Why can a person put a vulgar and lewd message and writing out there where I now have to explain the birds and bees to my kids before they really need to know about things like that? Take the profanity out of the message and I have no problem with it, but as it is, he is forcing what I consider a lewd act/message upon my young children. He is taking away the choice and imposing the lewd/explicate message on everybody in a public venue. The public and explicate display of the message should make it illegal in my opinion.

---

A person can put what you consider to be a vulgar or lewd message on their car in some cases (like this one) because their right to do so is protected by the First Amendment. Why you'd have to explain the birds and the bees to your kids because they read this is completely beyond me, so I can't answer that question. Again, you considering a vulgar or lewd act has absolutely no bearing on anything; this person's rights are just as protected as yours or mine. And he's not forcing it on your children, you're assuming that risk by taking them into public. You don't have to like that, but that's what the law says. He's not taking away your choice - you could choose to raise your children on a secluded farm away from the public. When you choose to take them into public, you don't get to use them as a reason to deprive others of their rights. If you want to start allowing the government to decide who can say what, would you complain when Obama used that to shut down Fox News? That's what you're asking for here, whether you realize that or not.

I will confess

My kids have heard me yell way worse words on a daily basis than those stickers.

I do find it interesting that the DA contradicted the sheriff. The sheriff said he had talked to the DA about possible charges. The DA later said he had not spoken to the sheriff about the incident or possible charges. It was the press who first brought the sticker to his attention and after viewing the sticker he immediately knew that he couldn't bring any charges. So depending on how cynical you are, the sheriff either misspoke or lied.

I live in FBC and think Nehls does a pretty good job, but he sure isn't shy about bringing media coverage on himself. I think he has a little egg on his face over this one and probably should've just handled it quietly instead of making public statements and then being contradicted by the DA

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

How does the FBCSO have egg on its face? Dude was trying to keep the peace. They did nothing wrong by following through on warrants.

---

Using the power of his office to threaten un-Constitutional action against a citizen qualifies as getting egg on your face - or far worse - in my book. "Trying the keep the peace" is a convenient excuse for dereliction of duty, but I guess that's the world we live in.

aggiedent said:

---

I do find it interesting that the DA contradicted the sheriff. The sheriff said he had talked to the DA about possible charges. The DA later said he had not spoken to the sheriff about the incident or possible charges. It was the press who first brought the sticker to his attention and after viewing the sticker he immediately knew that he couldn't bring any charges. So depending on how cynical you are, the sheriff either misspoke or lied.

---

Pretty sure he said he talked to a prosecutor and "She"" said it could be disorderly conduct. Since the DA is a "He" not sure how he misspoke or lie. Sounds like the prosecutor just gave him bad advice.

I got my info from the Houston Chronicle story a day or two ago. They quoted him as saying he talked to the DA. They asked the DA what the sheriff discussed with him and the DA said he had not spoken with the sheriff. That's what I'm going by.

And just FYI, I personally am a fan of Nehls. I just think this is stupid.

If I was on a jury for the idiot about th sticker I wouldn't find her guilty. She is a moron imo but not guilty of anything but being a moron.

aggiedent said:

---

I got my info from the Houston Chronicle story a day or two ago. They quoted him as saying he talked to the DA. They asked the DA what the sheriff discussed with him and the DA said he had not spoken with the sheriff. That's what I'm going by.

---

Can you link it? All I see in the various Chronicle articles is that he spoke with "a local prosecutor".

The original Facebook post that he wrote says "prosecutor" and "she" so plainly he was not speaking of Healy. Perhaps you should go by his words rather than a newspaper quote which to date hasn't been produced.

I think the following clearly shows he was not looking to put anyone away but simply help everyone avoid a potential mess.

Quote:

---

"We have not threatened anybody with arrest. We have not written any citations," Nehls said. "But I think now it would be a good time to have meaningful dialogue with that person and express the concerns out there regarding the language on the truck."

Authorities know who the driver is but have not yet spoken with the individual. Nehls did not name the driver at his news conference.

The sheriff said he wants to avoid a situation where somebody could take offense to the sign on the truck, possibly leading to a confrontation.

"I don't want to see anything happen to anyone," Nehls said. "With people's ... mindset today, that's the last thing we need, a breach of the peace."

---

Thunder18 said:

---

I live in FBC and think Nehls does a pretty good job, but he sure isn't shy about bringing media coverage on himself. I think he has a little egg on his face over this one and probably should've just handled it quietly instead of making public statements and then being contradicted by the DA

---

Egg? He's an ambitious politician with national aspirations. This is the best week he's EVER had.

jayelbee said:

---

Nothing to see here... Just a politician stirring up some media coverage to create name recognition.

---

Did anyone else read that link as Nehl sexploratory 2018?