Va Beach no cursing law

[Road Program]

Yep, the law is real and enforced. And forget your 1st Amedment (or any other rights) in VaBeach.

I got a moving violation on the strip and had to go to court. I basically did my lawyer's job and showed him how what I was charged with was not applicable. His response? Well, you're right...but you're also military and the judge will be mad for you trying to prove him and the law wrong.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I think I'll go outside and hurl curses at the neighbor's cat .... :icon_rast

My wife has a cat. B!tching the cat out definitely helps relax the soul.

 

[othromas]

I got a moving violation on the strip and had to go to court. I basically did my lawyer's job and showed him how what I was charged with was not applicable. His response? Well, you're right...but you're also military and the judge will be mad for you trying to prove him and the law wrong.

Am I missing something here? That sounds pretty messed up.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

I'd be interested in seeing what kind of legal reasoning they came up with to justify that the law isn't infringing on 1st amendment rights. I suspect that if anyone had the time/money/motivation to challenge this law, it would probably fall on those grounds.

Brett

Well, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment if it fails the "community standards" litmus test... see Roth v US and Miller v California...

 

[pilot_man]

Those cases dealt with porn and mailing said porn to unsuspected people. That is kind of ballsy. I think Va Beach is overstepping their bounds with a law restricting any kind of speech.

 

[squeeze]

Well, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment if it fails the "community standards" litmus test... see Roth v US and Miller v California...

Actually, the SCOTUS has ruled that vulgar language, so long as it's not used in a violent or sexually obscene manner, is protected. Roth, and it's later-revised standards in Miller aren't focused on language, where Chaplinsky is, and consequently, has never been used to uphold a conviction since its ruling.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Say what? Did Chaplinsky win his case? Or did he lose? What's that? The Supreme Court ruled that "fighting words" aren't protected?

Nice try...

 

[esday1]

I'd be interested to see the actual text of the VA beach law, since how the law is written can matter a lot. The truth about the Supreme Court cases in this area, and I say this after taking a semester of this stuff, is that trying to find consistency from one case to the next can be somewhat futile. Although they're theoretically bound by precedent, the combination of precedents right now is so ambiguous and conflicting that the Court seems to pretty much feel free to pick and choose how to apply them in a given situation unless the case is EXACTLY the same situation it has addressed before. Anyway, you could probably distinguish the VA beach law from Chaplinsky in that Chaplinsky only applied to situations that were very likely to produce a breach of the peace, whereas the VA beach law seems intended to keep tourists from getting offended, and the Court said in Cohen that just keeping people from getting offended isn't a valid reason to restrict speech.

 

[squeeze]

Say what? Did Chaplinsky win his case? Or did he lose? What's that? The Supreme Court ruled that "fighting words" aren't protected?

Nice try...

With reading comprehension skills like those, it's a sheer miracle you can get through a NATOPS.

1) I didn't say Chaplinsky won his case.

2) I said that SINCE the ruling, the SCOTUS has never upheld a conviction with based on the case.

3) I also said that so long as it's not used in a violent or sexually obscene manner, is protected... Chaplinsky was a case of the former... where the end result is an expected breach of peace.

4) You qouted two cases thoroughly unrelated to the case at hand, so I'm curious how you somehow think that makes your post more relevant.

 

[Road Program]

Am I missing something here? That sounds pretty messed up.

No, you're not missing anything. The only thing the traffic courts in VaBeach hate more than a motorcyclist is a motorcyclist in the military.

Long story short, I was charded with reckless driving (my motorcycle wasn't even ON at the time) which is a misdemeanor, and got it reduced to "improper driving." The nice thing is that no insurance company knows what the hell improper driving is. I had neither the money nor inclination to take this to a higher court, so I bit the bullet and paid my $50 fine.

 

[Brett327]

No, you're not missing anything. The only thing the traffic courts in VaBeach hate more than a motorcyclist is a motorcyclist in the military.

Long story short, I was charded with reckless driving (my motorcycle wasn't even ON at the time) which is a misdemeanor, and got it reduced to "improper driving." The nice thing is that no insurance company knows what the hell improper driving is. I had neither the money nor inclination to take this to a higher court, so I bit the bullet and paid my $50 fine.

What exactly were you alleged to have done which was so improper, if I may ask?

Brett