Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

417 | 418 | 419

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

priapus

priapus

I'm lost
January 2004

JAN 13, 2005 11:09 AM

HenryTNoob said:

WilliamIV said:

HenryTNoob said:

Cash said:

HenryTNoob said:
They were behaving like Waldorf and Stadler in a courthouse.



They were behaving like Statler & Waldorf in a courthouse lobby.



People who work in courthouses tend to take a dim view of people fucking around in the courthouse, whether in a lobby or a courtroom or a stall in the bathroom or whatever. Go figure.



The first amendment says: regarding fredom of speech:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The oonstitution goes on to say that no lower level of government make make laws that ocnflict with federal laws.

So, the jokers were wihtin their legal righs. It seems that "people that workk in th ecourthouse" need to be sent back to law schooil for a refresher course on the bill of rights.

[Edited on Jan 13, 2005 8:02AM]



Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are all kinds of perfectly constitutional ways in which speech is limited by law. It may be illegal, for example, to yell fire in a crowded theater and such a law restricting such speech would be entirely constitutional. The legislative body making the law has to have some valid state interest in making a law that restricts first amendment right to speech. One might argue that preserving public order in a courthouse is a compelling state interest. So, it's quite likely that if the people making the jokes were indeed causing a disturbance that they were not within their legal rights.



You should spend a day in the Harris County Courthouse...especially the family law center...and trust me, lawyers themselves stand around in the common areas of courthouses telling jokes to each other every day. If they were actually disturbing a proceeding, I think you're right, if they were just annoying the anointed brethren, I don't think the arrest can stand.

MisterSatan

MisterSatan

Portland, OR
August 2002

JAN 13, 2005 11:14 AM

I don't know, I think it's a good idea to arrest people for telling bad jokes. Besides, what kind of a comedian tells jokes anymore anyway? Jokes are for amateurs, not pros. These guys sound like a couple of fucking hacks.

priapus

priapus

I'm lost
January 2004

JAN 13, 2005 11:32 AM

Well...if they violated the local hack prohibition ordinance they're just fucked...

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

JAN 13, 2005 11:41 AM

priapus said:

HenryTNoob said:

WilliamIV said:


The first amendment says: regarding fredom of speech:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The oonstitution goes on to say that no lower level of government make make laws that ocnflict with federal laws.

So, the jokers were wihtin their legal righs. It seems that "people that workk in th ecourthouse" need to be sent back to law schooil for a refresher course on the bill of rights.

[Edited on Jan 13, 2005 8:02AM]



Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are all kinds of perfectly constitutional ways in which speech is limited by law. It may be illegal, for example, to yell fire in a crowded theater and such a law restricting such speech would be entirely constitutional. The legislative body making the law has to have some valid state interest in making a law that restricts first amendment right to speech. One might argue that preserving public order in a courthouse is a compelling state interest. So, it's quite likely that if the people making the jokes were indeed causing a disturbance that they were not within their legal rights.



You should spend a day in the Harris County Courthouse...especially the family law center...and trust me, lawyers themselves stand around in the common areas of courthouses telling jokes to each other every day. If they were actually disturbing a proceeding, I think you're right, if they were just annoying the anointed brethren, I don't think the arrest can stand.



I think there must be more to the story than they were telling jokes. I would guess that they were asked to settle down and kept antagonizing the humorless lawyer who got annoyed at lawyer jokes. Otherwise, yes, the arrest probably shouldn't hold up.

St_Expedite

St_Expedite

New Orleans, LA
January 2004

JAN 13, 2005 12:00 PM

HenryTNoob said:

WilliamIV said:

HenryTNoob said:

Cash said:

HenryTNoob said:
They were behaving like Waldorf and Stadler in a courthouse.



They were behaving like Statler & Waldorf in a courthouse lobby.



People who work in courthouses tend to take a dim view of people fucking around in the courthouse, whether in a lobby or a courtroom or a stall in the bathroom or whatever. Go figure.



The first amendment says: regarding fredom of speech:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The oonstitution goes on to say that no lower level of government make make laws that ocnflict with federal laws.

So, the jokers were wihtin their legal righs. It seems that "people that workk in th ecourthouse" need to be sent back to law schooil for a refresher course on the bill of rights.

[Edited on Jan 13, 2005 8:02AM]



Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are all kinds of perfectly constitutional ways in which speech is limited by law. It may be illegal, for example, to yell fire in a crowded theater and such a law restricting such speech would be entirely constitutional. The legislative body making the law has to have some valid state interest in making a law that restricts first amendment right to speech. One might argue that preserving public order in a courthouse is a compelling state interest. So, it's quite likely that if the people making the jokes were indeed causing a disturbance that they were not within their legal rights.



Well, analyze it under Cohen. California tried to make the same argument about wearing a jacket with "Fuck the draft" written on it, in the calls of the courthouse, and it didn't work out so well for them. It might be distinguishable, but there's a decent arguement to be made there.

Of course, the ironic thing about this is that if they want to challenge this, they might have to get...

A lawyer.

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

JAN 13, 2005 12:15 PM

Lemonnier said:
Of course, the ironic thing about this is that if they want to challenge this, they might have to get...

A lawyer.



New York has Ron Kubi (sp?) - a truly bizarre lawyer who will probably take the case Pro-Bono just for the media coverage.

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

JAN 13, 2005 03:28 PM

mydogfarted said:

Lemonnier said:
Of course, the ironic thing about this is that if they want to challenge this, they might have to get...

A lawyer.



New York has Ron Kubi (sp?) - a truly bizarre lawyer who will probably take the case Pro-Bono just for the media coverage.



Or the jokesters can represent themselved pro se.

Ghostdad

Ghostdad

Pacifica, CA
January 2004

JAN 13, 2005 03:36 PM

HenryTNoob said:
They were behaving like Waldorf and Stadler in a courthouse.



Everyone knows you gotta save that stuff for the balcony.

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

JAN 13, 2005 03:40 PM

HenryTNoob said:
Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are all kinds of perfectly constitutional ways in which speech is limited by law. It may be illegal, for example, to yell fire in a crowded theater and such a law restricting such speech would be entirely constitutional. The legislative body making the law has to have some valid state interest in making a law that restricts first amendment right to speech. One might argue that preserving public order in a courthouse is a compelling state interest. So, it's quite likely that if the people making the jokes were indeed causing a disturbance that they were not within their legal rights.



Take from a first year, Intro to Law class....the ol' "Fire in a crowded theater" analogy. Preserving order in the courtroom is reasonable. Expecting orderly, silent conduct in the lobby isn't. My job puts me in a courtroom setting all the time...State Superior Court to be specific. The lobby is a madhouse. Yes, you'd better shut your mouth when you're in the court room...in the presence of a judge, but in the fucking lobby? I think not.

Like you said somewhere else in the thread...something is missing from the story. I find it highly unlikely that these guys got a pair of silver bracelets for making a few bad jokes. I find it more likely that they were told to shut up by a Sheriff's Officer and decided not to.

Stiles

Stiles

Oakland, CA
November 2002

JAN 13, 2005 04:11 PM

The pair said that for years they have stood outside courthouses on Long Island and mocked lawyers.



These guys don't sound too bright.

bpatrick

bpatrick

Tampa, FL
March 2004

JAN 13, 2005 06:18 PM

My father and grandfather were both
attorneys and constantly joke about
their profession. Most lawyers do..
like it was said prior,there's more to
this story then is being told.

[Edited on Jan 13, 2005 6:20PM]

dpk

dpk

Seattle, WA
November 2004

JAN 13, 2005 07:25 PM

mydogfarted said:
New York has Ron Kubi (sp?) - a truly bizarre lawyer who will probably take the case Pro-Bono just for the media coverage.



Yep

WilliamIV

WilliamIV

I'm lost
January 2004

JAN 17, 2005 08:24 AM

Then the Lawyers should have been arrested as they were the ones making a disturrbance by protesting

PS are you a lawyer or are any of your friends or relatives lawyers?


HenryTMensch said:

WilliamIV said:

HenryTNoob said:

Cash said:

HenryTNoob said:
They were behaving like Waldorf and Stadler in a courthouse.



They were behaving like Statler & Waldorf in a courthouse lobby.



People who work in courthouses tend to take a dim view of people fucking around in the courthouse, whether in a lobby or a courtroom or a stall in the bathroom or whatever. Go figure.



The first amendment says: regarding fredom of speech:

"Congress shall make no law respecting a






n establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The oonstitution goes on to say that no lower level of government make make laws that ocnflict with federal laws.

So, the jokers were wihtin their legal righs. It seems that "people that workk in th ecourthouse" need to be sent back to law schooil for a refresher course on the bill of rights.

[Edited on Jan 13, 2005 8:02AM]



Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are all kinds of perfectly constitutional ways in which speech is limited by law. It may be illegal, for example, to yell fire in a crowded theater and such a law restricting such speech would be entirely constitutional. The legislative body making the law has to have some valid state interest in making a law that restricts first amendment right to speech. One might argue that preserving public order in a courthouse is a compelling state interest. So, it's quite likely that if the people making the jokes were indeed causing a disturbance that they were not within their legal rights.


WilliamIV

WilliamIV

I'm lost
January 2004

JAN 17, 2005 08:25 AM

How can a sheriffs deputy makea lawful order not to tell lawyer jokes?


Cash said:

HenryTNoob said:
Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are all kinds of perfectly constitutional ways in which speech is limited by law. It may be illegal, for example, to yell fire in a crowded theater and such a law restricting such speech would be entirely constitutional. The legislative body making the law has to have some valid state interest in making a law that restricts first amendment right to speech. One might argue that preserving public order in a courthouse is a compelling state interest. So, it's quite likely that if the people making the jokes were indeed causing a disturbance that they were not within their legal rights.



Take from a first year, Intro to Law class....the ol' "Fire in a crowded theater" analogy. Preserving order in the courtroom is reasonable. Expecting orderly, silent conduct in the lobby isn't. My job puts me in a courtroom setting all the time...State Superior Court to be specific. The lobby is a madhouse. Yes, you'd better shut your mouth when you're in the court room...in the presence of a judge, but in the fucking lobby? I think not.

Like you said somewhere else in the thread...something is missing from the story. I find it highly unlikely that these guys got a pair of silver bracelets for making a few bad jokes. I find it more likely that they were told to shut up by a Sheriff's Officer and decided not to.


HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

JAN 17, 2005 08:30 AM

WilliamIV said:
Then the Lawyers should have been arrested as they were the ones making a disturrbance by protesting

PS are you a lawyer or are any of your friends or relatives lawyers?



I am a law student and many of my friends and relatives are lawyers.

As I said before, it's hard to tell from the original post what the whole story is. My guess is that some sort of loud argument errupted between the jokers and the offended lawyer and some courthouse worker told them all to hush up at which point the offended lawyer knew well enough not to mess around and the jokesters kept on jokestering.


HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

JAN 17, 2005 08:32 AM

WilliamIV said:
How can a sheriffs deputy makea lawful order not to tell lawyer jokes?



I would imagine that a sheriff's deputy can make a lawful order not to cause a disturbance in a courthouse and that in this particular instance that involved not telling anymore lawyer jokes.

WilliamIV

WilliamIV

I'm lost
January 2004

JAN 18, 2005 06:20 PM

From my experience durring the Vietnam was demonstratrions law enforcement think they ARE the law


HenryTMensch said:

WilliamIV said:
How can a sheriffs deputy makea lawful order not to tell lawyer jokes?



I would imagine that a sheriff's deputy can make a lawful order not to cause a disturbance in a courthouse and that in this particular instance that involved not telling anymore lawyer jokes.


oldsarge

oldsarge

Columbus, OH
January 2005

JAN 18, 2005 10:02 PM

1st Amendment, free speech clause, are we in the core or the pnembra??puke

"Fire in a ....yada, yada"-- whatever

We saw during the '60s the absolute COARSENING of our society, just because you can, SHOULD you? ["Reality" TV does the same thing]

OK, so time to push the envelope the other way-free speech is NOT an absolute, when you make free speech= speech + acts or acts w/o speech ala the Federal
9th Circuit , or similar pinhead judges.

In the case at issue, I agree you had to be there, I'd love to see the transcript of the trial-if it gets past a motion for dismissal [1st Amend a/o equiv. NYS Constitution.]

Do you know how to save a lawyer from drowning?
--
--
--
No.
--
--
Good ! tongue


Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next