1st Amendment Exemption

J

John/az2

New member
I recieved this today:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It used to be when two kids on bikes drove by a cop, one would yell, "What are pennies made of?" to which the 2nd would reply: "Copper". If the first were brave, he'd then yell, "what kind of copper?" And the reply would be "dirty copper."

Played that game 100s of time as a kid. Never really meant anything by it. There wasn't any animosity, really. It was just something kids did, like playing "padiddle", when you saw a car with a burnt out headlight. (Padinkies were for tail lights.)

Can you imagine how a cop would respond to being a butt of that joke today? Even their dad's, the one's who used to play copper, wouldn't dare call a cop anything but sir, when stopped for a mere traffic violation. Today's arrogant cop would take it personally and find a way to "teach" the perps a lesson, and you know what? I know there's a lot of people reading this that think the same way.

The state of Oregon agrees with you. They're passing a bill SB70 to exempt insulting of govt officials from the 1st amendment. Penalty: 5 yrs & fines up to $100K. (Talk about arrogance.) Don't tell me that this country is based on the Constitution any longer. We left it in the dust decades ago.

Cruel & unusual is not part of their lexicon. The existing govt draws it's legitimacy on it's power and our fears, instead of the consent of the people. Just like in Kosovo,
might makes right. Ask any cop.
[/quote]

Is there anyone in Oregon that can confirm this?




------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
 
Just went and read the bill at senate page. This is too scary for my tastes.

B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or
gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violentresponse;

I guess it is up to the insultee to interpret whether it is insulting.

I guess Oregon is out for a place to live if passes.

------------------
lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate
 
DC,

My search techniques are obviously not as refined as your's! ;)

That link you posted gives me errors. Is it correct?

Thanks!

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
 
John

Sorry...I should have realized that gopher links time out. Mea Culpa :)

I'll go find it again and mail it to you as its to big to post. It will be sometime tonite as I've spent too much time on my butt in front of the puter....gonna go and shoot some ground squirrels now

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Okay, I've read the text that DC sent and after only the first reading I was thinking, "Hey! This isn't so bad." But, on second reading, I guess the gears kicked in and my thoughts became, "Well... let's look at a bigger picture."

Some of these officials might deserve a good lashing by We the People. I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to protect them from the ire of the public when they deserve it. My thinking is that it would create more abuses by public officials because of that very protection. Besides, it's being written and enacted by some of those "officials" themselves. Who to better protect their interests?

Further, if there was a cause of nonjustifiable abuse to a public "servant" aren't there already measures in place to rectify such an offense?

This is stream-of-typing reasoning! :D

Any answers or different slants on this?

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com


[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited May 01, 1999).]
 
Well, we can't have discourse if only you and I see it ;)




70th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--1999 Regular Session

NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .

LC 1100

Senate Bill 70

Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the
President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part
of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Judiciary
Committee for the Judicial Department and the Judicial
Conference Committee on Security and Hazardous Materials)


SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

Creates crimes of assaulting public servant, intimidating
public servant and intimidating judge. Punishes by maximum of
five years' imprisonment, $100,000 fine, or both.
Increases penalty for harassing public servant to maximum of
five years' imprisonment, $100,000 fine, or both.

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to crime; creating new provisions; and amending ORS
166.065.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 166.065 is amended to read:
166.065. (1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the
person intentionally:
(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:
(A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact;
or
(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or
gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent
response;
(b) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report,
known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious
physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be
expected to cause alarm; or
(c) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a { - telephonic
or written - } threat { + , directly or indirectly and in any
manner, + }to inflict serious physical injury on that person or
to commit a felony involving the person or property of that
person or any member of that person's family, which threat
reasonably would be expected to cause alarm. { + If the person
being subjected to alarm under this paragraph is a public servant
acting in the course of official duty, the threat need only be to
inflict physical injury. + }
(2) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person
knowingly permits any { - telephone - } { + communication
device + } under the person's control to be used in violation of
subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section { + : + }
{ - , - }
{ + (a) + } Harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person
violates subsection (1) of this section by subjecting another
person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical
contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts
of the other person.
{ + (b) Harassment is a Class C felony if the person violates
subsection (1) of this section and the person subjected to the
harassment is a public servant acting in the course of official
duty.
(5) As used in this section, 'public servant' has the meaning
given that term in section 2 of this 1999 Act. + }
SECTION 2. { + As used in sections 3, 4 and 5 of this 1999
Act:
(1) 'Public servant' means a person who is or who has been
elected, appointed or designated to become:
(a) An officer or employee of this state or any political
subdivision thereof;
(b) An advisor or consultant to this state or any political
subdivision thereof; or
(c) A juror.
(2) 'Threat' means a communication, direct or indirect, made in
any manner that conveys the intent of:
(a) Causing unlawful physical injury to a person;
(b) Immediately using unlawful physical force against a person
who is present at the time the threat is communicated;
(c) Causing unlawful damage to the property of another person;
or
(d) Subjecting a person to unlawful physical restraint. + }
SECTION 3. { + (1) A person commits the crime of assaulting a
public servant if the person knowingly causes physical injury to
another person knowing the other person to be a public servant
and:
(a) The public servant is acting in the course of official
duty; or
(b) The assault is in retaliation for, or to prevent or
influence, an official action of the public servant.
(2) Assaulting a public servant is a Class C felony.
(3) As used in this section, 'public servant' does not include
a public safety officer listed in ORS 163.208. + }
SECTION 4. { + (1) A person commits the crime of intimidating
a public servant if the person knowingly and by means of a threat
attempts to prevent or influence an official action of the public
servant.
(2) Intimidating a public servant is a Class C felony.
(3) As used in this section, 'public servant' does not include
jurors. + }
SECTION 5. { + (1) A person commits the crime of intimidating
a judge if the person knowingly directs a threat to a judge:
(a) Because of a ruling or decision of the judge in an official
proceeding; or
(b) In an attempt to influence a ruling or decision of the
judge in an official proceeding.
(2) Intimidating a judge is a Class C felony. + }
----------
.
 
Like I said before...this isn't about calling a cop or public official or a juror an @$$hole or jerk.
Its about intimidation and cohersion.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
History repeats itself. The Sedition Act back when the Federalists had control of the government in the late 1790's. I think the US Supreme Court would strike down this law when it comes up.

------------------
Join the NRA!!!
 
DC: I'm not sure I entirely agree. According to the above text, If some jerk cuts me off and I flip him off,I'm OK, as long as the person isn't a publc servant. If the *flipee* is a public servant, driving during the course of his official duty, I can be charge with a Class C felony. What irks me about this, is it's just one more measure to make the distinction between us commoners and the government elite. The surface intention seems aimed at increasing penelties for attempted coersion, or averting intimidation of public servants.The wording is pretty poor though, as it opens the door to a lot of potential abuse. I'm personally against any laws that disciminate between us ordinary peons and the elite class of goverment agents, which by increasing measures are becoming acceptable. Course this may be a trial balloon to see how well such measures fly before they launch the big bird. Federal proposed mandates call for doubling the penelties, up to life in prison, for attacking a *public servant*. Check out the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act. This bill has cleared the house, and is now in the Senate. I have been following this one for months.If this one makes it through, we as a country are in deep do-do. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html and use borders as a searchword.
------------------
(!)

[This message has been edited by Hal (edited May 02, 1999).]
 
The law is obviously different there ...

Here, if you publicly abuse (read swear at) a copper, you can (and probably will) be charged with assault -- and the courts take it very seriously.

Bruce
 
<h1>Article 58</h1>
Ever hear of it? In the criminal code of USSR, this was the most used item, starting in the 20s. It read "trason against the soviet country" and carried penalties of10, later 15 years (effectively, murder) up to outright murder.

Its application was very liberal...if you killed someone, that could be 10 years for murder or, if the person killed was employed or somehow related to govt. activity, that would be article 58 -- and a death penalty.

You would get the same death panalty under the same article for stealing 10 cents worth of something. For example, if you walked past a dumpster and pulled something out of it...and the dumpster was behind a (government-run) store, that would be "theft of socialist property" and you'd get your fast 9 grams.

If another made a lewd pass at you and got rebuffed, that would be "insulting and denigrading a soviet employee or executive"...same 9 grams or 10-25 years, same end result.

Seems that kind of niceties were not invented by Commies. Here's an email from a friend detailing what some of our "progresssive" comrades were up to earlier....
http://www.ddb.com/RKBA/french.txt

In other words, I think we are opening up to some nasty possibilities. I only hope the thugs start wearing distinctive uniforms, to reduce collateral damage.

Of course, THEIR media would report that the evil peaceful lawabiding citizens are responsible for all and any massacres, including Katyn'.

Barf...

------------------
Cornered Rat
ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
"Disarm, then past the barbed wire, into the oven and out of the smoke-stack..."
 
Holy Cow, Hal!

It's no wonder you've been following this bill for months! It probably takes that long just to read the thing!

I'd better get started...

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
 
Holy Cow, Hal!

It's no wonder you've been following this bill for months! It probably takes that long just to read the thing!

I'd better get started...

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
 
Hal...
I'm just not getting the same take on this that you are.
The take I get is that when the insults crank up to threats, intimidation, cohersion etc thats when the felony charges could kick in.

It is very poorly written. I'd like to see/read the circumstances if the prosecute someone

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
DC: I guess it's the old "Give them an inch" pessimistic attitude I've got. When I llok at something seemingly obvious on the face, I tend to look at how it will be abused. Depressingly, the abuse is often accepted as the intent.

------------------
(!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top