CHP dispatcher loses appeal over decapitated drugged driverCatsouras photos

On May 28, 12:11*pm, Steve Sobol > wrote:
> In article <f90da222aac1f660dfa380216e6327e1
> @msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Drive The Tollroads! says...
>
> > "This is a huge First Amendment case," Schlueter said. "What my
> > client did is protected by the First Amendment. Some people
> > might not like what he did, but the First Amendment protects
> > speech."
>
> Someone tell the idiot lawyer that First Amendment protections aren't
> absolute.
>
> Actually, the idiot lawyer should already have known that.

Of course they aren't absolute, but part of the argument is that the
wrapping email put it in a first amendment context. The possible fact
that the email was libelous (associating drinking when there was none)
would have been another limitation, of course, with remedies in the
courts. But lying is protected speech (recent rulings by the US
Supreme court on fake veterans for example). I don't envy lawyers who
have to defend idiots. Somehow I think that this was in a public
area, as opposed to a morgue, should have been relevant, but I can't
disagree with the right of privacy issue. Then again, the intertubes
make that right obsolete in a practical sense.

I saw the Westboro Baptist bus on the 5NB after they protested in
front of San Diego synagogues and such, and I swear, it was all I
could do to keep my inner Walter Mitty from driving in front of them
and stopping, just sitting there getting all the other traffic ****ed
off. Funny how pushing the limits of free speech can change your
attitude.

On an unrelated note that somehow the OP icky pix made me think of,
big electronic sign NB5 before 74 says "C_ICK IT OR TICKET." Wish I'd
had the camera at the ready.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...-foot-traffic/