EARTHman

10/23/2024

10/06/2024

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant
amount of verbal criticism and challenge
directed at police officers. "Speech is
often provocative and challenging. . . . [But
it] is nevertheless protected against
censorship or punishment, unless shown likely
to produce a clear and present danger of a
serious substantive evil that rises far above
public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

07/13/2024

When a prosecutor resigns in the middle of trial...it's because they recognize the misconduct and want to distance themselves from criminal prosecution and or being disbarred and or sanctioned. Our judicial brance is corrupt all over America. Look at our prison population compared to the world.

06/06/2024

JUSTICE POWELL suggests that our analysis of protected speech sweeps too broadly. But if some constitutionally unprotected speech must go unpunished, that is a price worth paying to preserve the vitality of the First Amendment.
"[I]f absolute assurance of tranquility is required, we may as well forget about free speech. Under such a requirement, the only 'free' speech would consist of platitudes. That kind of speech does not need constitutional protection."

06/06/2024

The freedom of individuals verbally
to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.

06/06/2024

Moreover, in a concurring opinion in Lewis, JUSTICE POWELL suggested that even the "fighting words" exception recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), might require a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because
"a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to 'exercise a higher degree of restraint' than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words.'"

06/06/2024

In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a conviction under a Louisiana statute.

Lousiana law against cursing at police overturned as overly broad


Justice William Brennan wrote the decision for five members of the Court, ruling that the law at issue had been overly broad in that it associated all use of “obscene or opprobrious language” directed to police officers as a form of fighting words.

06/04/2024

"Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

06/04/2024

to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.

06/04/2024

"a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to 'exercise a higher degree of restraint' than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words.'"

05/16/2024

The GOP, defund police. Finally, we agree on something.

02/28/2024

The police earning the hate of the American people. Losing the trust of the American people.

Get your Trifolds and 5th Amendment Cop Cards on www.DeleteLawZ.com Thanks,Chille@ChilleDeCastro PayPal@Chille-DeCastro Venmo$ChilleDeCastro Cashappzelle: De...