Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Kentucky bill advances making criticizing cops a crime. No negative comments to the right   (foxnews.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

1556 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Mar 2021 at 4:50 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



98 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-03-05 3:43:04 PM  
Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works they also seem to have no idea what a professional police officer does. If a person with a gun and badge can be provoked with just words they should not be allowed to keep the badge. I guess republicans believe police are just a bunch of unprofessional snowflakes.
 
2021-03-05 3:49:29 PM  
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.
 
2021-03-05 3:49:35 PM  
ACLU's lawsuit is just going to be "Seriously? I mean... C'mon now."
 
2021-03-05 3:51:15 PM  
Well, this is quite literally the contempt of cop law.
 
2021-03-05 3:53:51 PM  
Hey, KY... What is the crime for bashing a cops head in with a fire extinguisher?
 
2021-03-05 4:01:54 PM  

eurotrader: Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works they also seem to have no idea what a professional police officer does. If a person with a gun and badge can be provoked with just words they should not be allowed to keep the badge. I guess republicans believe police are just a bunch of unprofessional snowflakes.


It isn't about that.  There is starting to be pushback against the "Stop resisting" dodge to allow police to ventilate Those People.  Now, they have moved on to "He called me a doodyhead" to justify ventilating Those People.  In Kentucky, ventilating Those People is the sole criterion for "professionalism in law enforcement"; carrying about the law or civil rights is a sign of dangerously un-American socialisms and grounds for dismissal - and ventilation for having hidden the miscegenation in your background that would lead to such hippy-dippy bullshiat.
 
2021-03-05 4:02:49 PM  

GardenWeasel: Hey, KY... What is the crime for bashing a cops head in with a fire extinguisher?


In Kentucky: What is the melanin concertation of the cop being attacked?  Because if it is high enough, no crime occurred.
 
2021-03-05 4:05:21 PM  

Bootleg: ACLU's lawsuit is just going to be "Seriously? I mean... C'mon now."


And depending on what judge they get, the response will be, "Yes, seriously.  Because Our Brave Boys in Blue."

F*ck the goddamn cops.
 
2021-03-05 4:22:07 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Bootleg: ACLU's lawsuit is just going to be "Seriously? I mean... C'mon now."

And depending on what judge they get, the response will be, "Yes, seriously.  Because Our Brave Boys in Blue."

F*ck the goddamn cops.


Speaking of which. Trump appointed one judge (Boom) to both the Eastern and Western Districts of KY. He also appointed one judge to all 3 districts in OH.

How does that work, and can the seats be split by Biden?
 
2021-03-05 4:31:52 PM  
The GOP seems quite happy to waste a ton of public money defending laws that have no chance of standing.  Party of fiscal discipline my ass.
 
2021-03-05 4:34:41 PM  
Just a friendly reminder that the official position of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is that black people's lives are worth less than white people's drywall.
 
2021-03-05 4:39:23 PM  
Looks like the full text of the bill is available here; key section says:

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the second degree when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof, he [...] Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.


eurotrader: Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works


Actually, it looks like someone does have a basic idea. The relevant SCOTUS precedent would seem to be the 1942 ruling in Chaplinsky v NH (315 US 568). The test isn't merely whether the officer is offended, but whether it would "have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person"; that probably is within the "fighting words" exception.

It might be fun for a lawyer to try make the courts define under what conditions violence might ever be the response of a "reasonable and prudent person".
 
2021-03-05 4:40:34 PM  
So after the cop assaults you, he claims you insulted him and you get prosecuted.

/and would you believe it but his body camera somehow managed to not be working that day
 
2021-03-05 4:45:11 PM  

eurotrader: Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works they also seem to have no idea what a professional police officer does. If a person with a gun and badge can be provoked with just words they should not be allowed to keep the badge. I guess republicans believe police are just a bunch of unprofessional snowflakes.


technically, it is a shield.
A badge has your picture on it.
 
2021-03-05 4:52:34 PM  
How about oinking noises? Are those still okay or are farm animal imitations frowned upon now?
 
2021-03-05 4:52:40 PM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


THIS time because you said I was a doody-head that smelt of elderberries.
 
2021-03-05 4:53:35 PM  

eurotrader: I guess republicans believe police are just a bunch of unprofessional snowflakes.


Well, they have a point there, I guess.
 
2021-03-05 4:53:44 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-05 4:53:48 PM  

GardenWeasel: Hey, KY... What is the crime for bashing a cops head in with a fire extinguisher?


Wasn't that in the movie Irreversable?
 
2021-03-05 4:55:30 PM  
Sounds like an open invitation for police riots.
 
2021-03-05 4:55:41 PM  

abb3w: Looks like the full text of the bill is available here; key section says:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the second degree when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof, he [...] Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.

eurotrader: Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works

Actually, it looks like someone does have a basic idea. The relevant SCOTUS precedent would seem to be the 1942 ruling in Chaplinsky v NH (315 US 568). The test isn't merely whether the officer is offended, but whether it would "have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person"; that probably is within the "fighting words" exception.

It might be fun for a lawyer to try make the courts define under what conditions violence might ever be the response of a "reasonable and prudent person".


That law is just too damned vague intentionally. All you have to do is be visible to a LEO and he/she can decide your face needs to be locked up.

Won't somebody please think of the resting biatch faces out there?
 
2021-03-05 4:56:17 PM  
This is PRECISELY the sort of thing that the 1st amendment was designed to stop.
 
2021-03-05 4:56:35 PM  
"To protect and cower!"
 
2021-03-05 4:57:24 PM  
Hasn't the SCOTUS already ruled on this kind of thing?

GOP calculus...

Insulting a cop in KY:  Crime
Beating a cop to death in DC: PATRIOTISM!
 
2021-03-05 4:58:14 PM  
Meanwhile in Georgia:

Republicans in Georgia are passing restrictive voting laws, ostensibly to "protect" people's votes but which critics have said create unnecessary burdens to voters, particularly within communities of color.
Georgia House Bill 531, which passed in the Georgia General Assembly on Monday, would add a voter ID requirement for absentee ballots, limit the number and locations of early voting drop-off boxes, and reduce early voting days during the weekends prior to an election - including allowing just one Sunday to vote early.
If passed into law, individuals could be charged with misdemeanor crime if they hand out food or drinks to voters standing in line on election days.
 
2021-03-05 4:59:44 PM  
The only purpose of the bill is to remind everyone how stupid Kentucky is.
 
2021-03-05 4:59:55 PM  
Cops already arrest people for disrespecting them. They just lie about it and charge them with disturbing the peace or some other bullshiat that isn't intended as a law to force people to respect them. This would technically be a step up, since they would not have to act in their usual corrupt ways to arrest those who won't respect their authoritah.
 
2021-03-05 5:00:00 PM  

abb3w: Looks like the full text of the bill is available here; key section says:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the second degree when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof, he [...] Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.

eurotrader: Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works

Actually, it looks like someone does have a basic idea. The relevant SCOTUS precedent would seem to be the 1942 ruling in Chaplinsky v NH (315 US 568). The test isn't merely whether the officer is offended, but whether it would "have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person"; that probably is within the "fighting words" exception.

It might be fun for a lawyer to try make the courts define under what conditions violence might ever be the response of a "reasonable and prudent person".


https://littlevillagemag.com/federal-​a​ppeals-court-rules-saying-fark-you-to-​the-police-is-free-speech/

We shall see
 
2021-03-05 5:00:43 PM  
It was always something along with contempt of cop that you could legally be killed for doing. This just officially makes it a crime.
 
2021-03-05 5:01:38 PM  
when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof

well that right there by the GQP's own standards is completely unenforceable bullsh*t.

I mean gosh, after January 6th, no one at all could possibly show in even the least, smallest way that Darling Precious Holy FatherGod King Donald ever said a mildly harsh word that could possibly incite a child to very lightly kick a puppy, after all.
 
2021-03-05 5:02:51 PM  
About a third of the Declaration of Independence and at least seven of the first ten amendments are directly related to reigning in abuses inflicted on the population in the name of "law enforcement".

Speech is one of those. The state is restrained from tossing your ass in jail because you say something someone in government doesn't like. This law directly runs counter to that. Clear 1st Amendment violation.

The description is even worse - the boot licker gargling asshole is trying to turn cops into a one stop shop where they get to unilaterally decide if your words warrant them beating the shiat out of you, and the mere fact they beat the shiat out of you is then evidence that you are guilty of the crime of provoking a police officer to beat the shiat out of you.
 
2021-03-05 5:02:53 PM  
Defund the police.

\ unless you support the Brownshirts.
\\ in which case, fark right off Nazi.
 
2021-03-05 5:03:26 PM  
Any engineers know how loud music needs to be to be basically weaponized? Because I have a the perfect protest song for this.
 
2021-03-05 5:04:32 PM  

pueblonative: GardenWeasel: Hey, KY... What is the crime for bashing a cops head in with a fire extinguisher?

Wasn't that in the movie Irreversable?


Little Women.  Amy and Jo really were pissed with each other, officer was trying to separate them.
 
2021-03-05 5:04:50 PM  

abb3w: It might be fun for a lawyer to try make the courts define under what conditions violence might ever be the response of a "reasonable and prudent person".


lordjupiter: https://littlevillagemag.com/federal-​a​ppeals-court-rules-saying-fark-you-to-​the-police-is-free-speech/
We shall see


Well, clearly a "reasonable and prudent person" would not respond to being told "fark you" with violence, but by obtaining a condom.
 
2021-03-05 5:04:51 PM  

abb3w: Looks like the full text of the bill is available here; key section says:

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the second degree when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof, he [...] Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.


eurotrader: Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works

Actually, it looks like someone does have a basic idea. The relevant SCOTUS precedent would seem to be the 1942 ruling in Chaplinsky v NH (315 US 568). The test isn't merely whether the officer is offended, but whether it would "have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person"; that probably is within the "fighting words" exception.

It might be fun for a lawyer to try make the courts define under what conditions violence might ever be the response of a "reasonable and prudent person".


Domestic assaulters across the nation rejoice.

"Lookit what you made me do to you!"
 
2021-03-05 5:05:33 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-05 5:05:44 PM  

eurotrader: Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works they also seem to have no idea what a professional police officer does. If a person with a gun and badge can be provoked with just words they should not be allowed to keep the badge. I guess republicans believe police are just a bunch of unprofessional snowflakes.


I can not figure out why crime has sky rocketed in cities that critized the police, cut their funding, demonize them and in one city, attempted to burn them alive while they were  barricaded in their station.
 
2021-03-05 5:06:08 PM  
I first read that as "crops" instead of "cops".

/Imagined someone talking shiat about Kentucky corn.
 
2021-03-05 5:06:26 PM  
Look for similar bills to be advanced in most of the states very soon.

Followed by bills that would make criticizing Republicans a federal crime.
 
2021-03-05 5:07:05 PM  
64.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2021-03-05 5:08:44 PM  
A bill advancing out of a Kentucky Senate committee on Thursday would make it a crime to insult or taunt a police officer to the point where the taunts provoke a violent response.

Sounds like the problem lies with the cops.
 
2021-03-05 5:08:56 PM  
This won't hold up. See, e.g. Thurairajah v. Cross (8th Cir. 2019), Cohen v. California (U.S. 1971), and others. But that's really the GOP playbook for anything they find distasteful. Pass a law that is clearly overbroad, let it get struck down and chalk it up to more fodder for the culture wars we have to keep fighting for some stupid farking reason.
 
2021-03-05 5:12:23 PM  

kmgenesis23: This won't hold up. See, e.g. Thurairajah v. Cross (8th Cir. 2019), Cohen v. California (U.S. 1971), and others. But that's really the GOP playbook for anything they find distasteful. Pass a law that is clearly overbroad, let it get struck down and chalk it up to more fodder for the culture wars we have to keep fighting for some stupid farking reason.


And even if it does get struck down. Who cares. They haven't lost anything but have managed to force advocacy groups like ACLU expend considerable time, effort and money fighting the case to the Supreme Court while it costs the GOP apparatus nothing as their side is all taxpayer funded.

Then they can just pass another version worded slightly differently to re-run the process, while having a chilling effect on protests in the meantime.
 
2021-03-05 5:15:25 PM  
Minneapolis to spend $6.4 million to hire more police - StarTribune.com

Any Farkers in Minneapolis looking for a job, here is your chance to make a real difference and show this country how real policing is done.
 
2021-03-05 5:15:37 PM  
I like how the sponsor says this isn't about curtailing protesters, it's just to keep protestors from engaging in activity that breaks the law.

So you have to create a new law to keep people from breaking a law that already exists?  What?

Also that other law they mentioned makes helping rioters illegal is basically written in a manner so cops can arrest people providing medical attention, water, or food to protesters.
 
2021-03-05 5:17:58 PM  
Desantis better get on the ball if he wants to keep his farkwit 1st place ribbon

https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/gov​-​desantis-holds-press-conference-from-f​lorida-state-capitol/
 
2021-03-05 5:18:26 PM  

pmdgrwr: eurotrader: Besides republicans having not even a basic idea of how the 1st amendment works they also seem to have no idea what a professional police officer does. If a person with a gun and badge can be provoked with just words they should not be allowed to keep the badge. I guess republicans believe police are just a bunch of unprofessional snowflakes.

I can not figure out why crime has sky rocketed in cities that critized the police, cut their funding, demonize them and in one city, attempted to burn them alive while they were  barricaded in their station.


The reason you may not be able to figure it out is because it is not true. try using actual news for sources not Onon or Q. You could be trying bad satire or you know snowflake cops
 
2021-03-05 5:18:35 PM  
Lèse-gendarmerie
 
2021-03-05 5:19:11 PM  
Wait, wait, wait!  It only becomes a crime if it taunts them to take violent action.  It only becomes a crime...if it taunts them to take violent action.  So, Office Patience Job and Officer Trig Hair arrive at the scene of a protest.  Protestor Karen Kraken taunts Officer Job mercilessly, calling her a fascist pig and Biden's whore but Patience takes her de-escalation training seriously and practices reflecting Karen's concerns back to her to let her know she is listening and understands.  Officer Hair has a short fuse and goes into a furious rage at Lisa Liberal making squealing pig noises as he threatens to beat her with his baton, so he makes good on his threat and beats her calves until she falls to her knees and bashes her head on the ground.  Lisa Liberal gets arrested for provoking Harry Trigger to violence.  Karen Kraken is free to go because Patience Job was able to control her anger. 

This makes perfect sense.  Place the line between innocence and guilt on the temperament of the officer, not the individual citizen.  Given the bulletproof nature of qualified immunity in this county, this is a recipe for unbridled police violence.  The cops become judge, jury, and executioner.  "You sound like a libby lib" {POP}.  Sorry, Your Honor, I was provoked.  Qual-i-fied Im-mu-ni-ty!
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.