Chicago girl jailed over shirt worn in court.

[kb4ns]

What's the difference?

The person jailed is still getting jailed by someone of authority for nothing illegal.

The difference is that an LEO would not be enforcing the rules (ie, dress code) in his courtroom. Just like a public (read: government) school has dress codes and can send home, suspend, etc. students for violations, a courtroom has rules, too. Judges are given a lot of wiggle room when it comes to this and once again, I'm betting the t-shirt wasn't the only reason the girl got jail time.

[Mike.357]

The judge should have thrown her out if she didn't like it, not put her in jail for 2 days. Assuming her clothing was even disruptive to the court proceedings, it would still be overkill to do anything more to ask her to leave.

seeing as the only side of the story being presented is from the girl, all of this may well have been attempted. I would not be suprised if she showed some silent contempt for the judge.

[kb4ns]

The courts have ruled that contempt of cop is not illegal, but contempt of court is?

From Tennessee's law:

16-1-102. Powers of court. —

Every court has the power to:

(1) Enforce order in its immediate presence, or as near thereto as is necessary to prevent interruption, disturbance, or hindrance to its proceedings;

(2) Enforce order before a person or body acting under its authority;

(3) Compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the order of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding in court;

(4) Control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its officers, and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining to the proceeding;

(5) Administer oaths whenever it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers and duties; and

(6) Control its process and orders.

[mikegideon]

The courts have ruled that contempt of cop is not illegal, but contempt of court is?

One more word out of you boy, and you're going to jail. Heard that once in my '20's. It wasn't a judge

[E4 No More]

From Tennessee's law:

16-1-102. Powers of court. —

Every court has the power to:

(1) Enforce order in its immediate presence, or as near thereto as is necessary to prevent interruption, disturbance, or hindrance to its proceedings;

(2) Enforce order before a person or body acting under its authority;

(3) Compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the order of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding in court;

(4) Control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its officers, and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining to the proceeding;

(5) Administer oaths whenever it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers and duties; and

(6) Control its process and orders.

That wooshing sound was the point going over your head.

[E4 No More]

One more word out of you boy, and you're going to jail. Heard that once in my '20's. It wasn't a judge

Part of the reason that it was ruled that way, but judges can do the same thing. I've seen them make up their own laws more than once in my life both when I was and wasn't a police officer.

[strickj]

From Tennessee's law:

16-1-102. Powers of court. —

Every court has the power to:

(1) Enforce order in its immediate presence, or as near thereto as is necessary to prevent interruption, disturbance, or hindrance to its proceedings;

(2) Enforce order before a person or body acting under its authority;

(3) Compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the order of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding in court;

(4) Control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its officers, and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining to the proceeding;

(5) Administer oaths whenever it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers and duties; and

(6) Control its process and orders.

Where does it say in that, that the court has an exemption from the 1st or a person may be jailed because of a judges opinion about dress?

[kb4ns]

That wooshing sound was the point going over your head.

Well that's the law and I've yet to hear of any case law stating otherwise.

[kb4ns]

Where does it say in that, that the court has an exemption from the 1st or a person may be jailed because of a judges opinion about dress?

It doesn't say that. Nor does it say that someone walking into the courtroom with a speedo on is "contempt". It also doesn't say that you can't stick out your tongue and make goofy faces at the judge when you're testifying. However, those are all things that I'd shy away from, but that's just me.

I'll refrain from further comment until I know what really happened in the courtroom, not just what skankalicious told the media. As I said in a previous post, I think jail time over just a t-shirt is extreme and does not sound like any prudent judge I've ever met.

[Mark@Sea]

(4) Control, in furtherance of justice the conduct of its officers, and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining to the proceeding;

I think that covers it.

[Guest SUNTZU]

All I know is that if you wear that shirt then you'll learn that gravel tastes like .

[kb4ns]

All I know is that if you wear that shirt then you'll learn that gravel tastes like .

Here we go again!

[leroy]

Really? Where does it say that it only applies to political speech in the First Amnedment?

Not going to argue that the courts have perverted interpretations to consolidate power for their own purposes, but I've never seen what you claim in the actual Amendment whci is where they are supposed to have their power.

Sadly enough, the courts are charged with the responsibility to interpret the law. Remember what that the Sheriff said in that great classic "OH Brother, Where art Thou?†"...The law is a human institution...." Being human, it does bad things and even unlawful things.

Here is a pretty good interpretation about what "free speech" is with regard to the questions at hand:

Link here:firstamendmentcenter.org: Personal & public expression in Speech - Overview

Text here:

Personal and Public Expression

By David L. Hudson Jr

First Amendment scholar

The First Amendment affects our daily lives by ensuring that as individuals in a free, democratic society we have the freedom to voice our opinions, criticisms, objections and passions largely free from government interference. The First Amendment protects a broad range of public and personal expression on political, commercial, social and private matters.

Because of the First Amendment, we can post political signs in our yards, display bumper stickers and vanity plates on our cars, and speak out at city council meetings.

The First Amendment begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.†Although the words seem unqualified, the right is not absolute. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote more than 85 years ago in the 1919 decision Schenck v. United States: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.â€

The first major qualification is that the First Amendment, as with the other freedoms in the Bill of Rights, protects us from governmental, not private, interference with our speech. If the police arrest you because of your criticism of the mayor, then your First Amendment rights likely have been violated. However, if your neighbor takes down your yard sign, you may be able to sue him or her for trespassing — but you can’t sue that private person for a First Amendment violation. There has been no state or government action.

Content and context remain important free-speech considerations despite the lofty language of the First Amendment. Content is crucial even though the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that content-based and particularly viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Content becomes important in part because there are certain categories of speech that have been found to have such little social value that they do not merit protection. Examples include obscenity, true threats and fighting words — defined as words that incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Context — where the speech takes place — is also an important factor. Take, for example, the free-speech rights of public employees. Speech that may be protected when you are walking down the street may not be protected when you utter it in the workplace. The first guiding principle is whether one works for a public or private employer. Generally, private employees do not have First Amendment rights on the job, as there is no state actor involved. Public employees do retain a level of free-speech protection and do not forfeit their constitutional rights simply because they work for the government. In its 1968 decision Pickering v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that high school teacher Marvin Pickering had a First Amendment right to write an editorial criticizing the school board’s allocation of funds vis-à-vis academics and athletics.

“The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees,†Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the Court.

A public employee may disagree with the policies of her superiors, but she has no First Amendment right to wander around the office uttering profanities, disrupting the workplace and not performing her duties. The courts have ruled that employees retain First Amendment rights only when their expression touches on important matters of public concern, as opposed to mere personal grievances. Otherwise, the federal courts would be forced into the role of super-personnel managers.

Context becomes important in terms of timing, as well. Take the example of a citizen speaking during the public-comment period at a city council meeting. The citizen may want to speak for 30 minutes, but there is not enough time to hear such a lengthy discourse or diatribe. The government can generally impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech so long as they are content-neutral and give individuals ample alternative ways to express themselves. This means that it becomes important to know whether officials silenced the speaker because of the content of her speech and whether the individual retained an avenue to express herself.

The First Amendment remains a vibrant source of protection in our constitutional democracy, our blueprint for personal liberty. Without it, we would be at the government’s mercy when we engaged in both personal and public expression.

Thus endeth the lesson!

Kind regards,

Leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"I didn't mean to offend anybody," LaPenta said.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art4/0505101inside1.jpg

Uh huh:rolleyes:

[Guest Caveman]

All I know is that if you wear that shirt then you'll learn that gravel tastes like .

[Guest Jamie]

All I know is that if you wear that shirt then you'll learn that gavel tastes like .

There, fixed it.

J.

[E4 No More]

(4) Control, in furtherance of justice the conduct of its officers, and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining to the proceeding;

I think that covers it.

I think he's talking about the Constitution of The United States; not Tennessee law.

[E4 No More]

There, fixed it.

J.

[strickj]

(4) Control, in furtherance of justice the conduct of its officers, and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining to the proceeding;

I think that covers it.

How is her shirt in violation of "Control, in furtherance of justice..."?

It also states "and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding".

She was not connected to the judicial proceeding.

Edited May 6, 2010 by strickj

[ftncityfatboy]

she didn't know it was offensive what's the world coming too?

[Major Kong]

the girl is from Round Lake Illinios. It is not Chicago. If identified with a major city it should be Milwaukee (which is much closer) Round Lake is about ten minutes from Wisconsin.

Sorry, was going with the title of the post. "Stay classy, Round Lake" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[Mike.357]

Sorry, was going with the title of the post. "Stay classy, Round Lake" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

no not the same ring, I am not sure if Round Lake ever had class to begin with, LOL

[E4 No More]

Sadly enough, the courts are charged with the responsibility to interpret the law. Remember what that the Sheriff said in that great classic "OH Brother, Where art Thou?†"...The law is a human institution...." Being human, it does bad things and even unlawful things.

Here is a pretty good interpretation about what "free speech" is with regard to the questions at hand:

Link here:firstamendmentcenter.org: Personal & public expression in Speech - Overview

Text here:

Thus endeth the lesson!

Kind regards,

Leroy

I certainly agree with that. It's like the fox guarding the henhouse.

[Guest 70below]

How is her shirt in violation of "Control, in furtherance of justice..."?

It also states "and all other persons connected with a judicial proceeding".

She was not connected to the judicial proceeding.

In my OPINION, if you are in the courtroom observing a judicial proceeding, you have connected yourself to it.

[Guest Caveman]

no not the same ring, I am not sure if Round Lake ever had class to begin with, LOL

I'm pretty sure he was quoting "Anchorman." The "stay classy" quote was Ron Burgundy's closing line. Leave it to you to over analyze the joke.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Caveman