That's incorrect. I read the actual decision and the ruling specifies that in the case of the jacket, the F-word was not an incitement, so it qualified as free speech. That's absolutely clear. In addition, the "F and N and all that" are not hypothetical, they're examples of speech that's indecent and incitement, and not protected under the 1st Amendment.
While the most clear definition of the F-word denotes sexual intercourse, it can also be said in anger - as an attack. The way the gal in the truck used it, it means the latter. I presented the N-word scenario in the identical manner. Yet, the F-word still carries a sexual connotation is that is not suitable (for most thinking adults) to be used around children. And, our indecency laws are intended to protect children above all.
I hope this gal takes the ACLU up on their offer and sues the police department. If it goes anyway, I think we'll see that using the F-word in that context is defined as "fighting words" just as it would be if it were used in my example in conjunction with the N-word.
Context matters. That was the main point of the SCOTUS ruling.
Using your logic, you would also feel that she could drive around offending people with a sign that read "F*uck N*ggers and F*uck Everyone Who Marries N*ggers."
Because -- they are identical.
If you protect her -- you're also protecting the other.
If anyone actually cares, there are several pages of analysis in the other thread I linked to. That analysis there also quotes directly from the relevant portions of the relevant cases. You are a non-lawyer trying to play lawyer on DP and you obviously didn't read through the entire argument over there.
I stand by what I said there and the language I relied on there because unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about. Take a wild guess as to why that might be.
If you really want to make an argument worth more than a fart in the wind, you need to go find a circuit court case within the same jurisdiction that is now relevant or SCOTUS case that (1) is still good law on the relevant points, (2) addresses a sticker/sign/etc like the one in this case - not your deliberately enhanced hypothetical, but like this case - and distinguishes it to hold that it was not protected speech, (3) does NOT involve any aggravating factor, such as a person acting aggressively, shouting at people, or anything like that - just driving around with a comparable sticker like this lady was, (4) is still good law.
If you don't understand why those four things (there are more, but at least those) don't matter, then you really have no basis trying to argue about what the law is.
See, because anything else is not how legal analysis works. If you just cherry-pick the bits you like, then play semantic games, the court will laugh in your face. You don't just go with a few statements you like. You compare the WHOLE case to every other case factually like it. You detect the web of rationale and you look at how it changes according to factual differences in each appellate decision. THEN you make your argument. Because otherwise, you lose and you lose badly.
It's like a plumber trying to lecture a heart surgeon on how to place a stent. Yeah, the plumber might skim or even read some treatises, some peer-reviewd articles, but he really won't *get* it because he doesn't have the tools necessary to see the total picture. He could post about it in a place like DP, but the only reason it might appear to fly is that this is an internet debate forum, not an appellate court, so very few other people know enough to see why it doesn't fly. The poster might collect likes. They might get people to agree with them. But it'll still be total bull**** because the poster is talking about something he actually doesn't fully understand. And if he posts about heart stuff regularly, maybe he'll be right once in a blue moon, but that's more of an accident than anything.
So you can say whatever you want about the sticker in question here, and as long as it's in the rules, nobody can actually put teeth in their laughing you off. You can pretend to sound authoritative without consequence. So whatever. Say more words. Call me "angry" or names, if you want.
Won't change the simple fact that I'm almost certainly right that simply having that specific sticker on a truck that travels in public is 100% protected.
I really would like to see them try to charge her with disorderly conduct for this, then see the ACLU jump in, and then see the appellate rulings. That'd just be for my satisfaction because of course that wouldn't matter for DP. Nobody is going to turn around and go "ooohhhh, I see, I guess you were right." They'll have forgotten the issue, moved on, and will be bull*****ing about the next thing they don't really have the expertise to talk about.
/snort
Have a ...day
/justified rant off
