tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778296892059649551.post1738454857338837581..comments2011-04-12T19:52:20.631-05:00Comments on Amicus Curiosity: Them's fightin' words?jdisishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02564893565265248635noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778296892059649551.post-39601570811559956012011-04-12T19:52:20.631-05:002011-04-12T19:52:20.631-05:00Yes, Schutzman is both the cop and inspector.
The...Yes, Schutzman is both the cop and inspector.<br /><br />The "tests" used for this article come directly from the opinion. Under subsection B (First Amendment Claim of Retaliatory Arrest, p. 11) in the opinion as listed at the bottom of my source list, the court goes into great detail as to the criteria used. The second paragraph under that subsection details the three elements of a retaliation claim. <br /><br />The other test is laid out directly under the Analysis portion of the opinion (p. 5). <br /><br />I hope that helps. If you're interested in reading more I recommend paying special attention to the footnotes included in the opinion, since many of them refer to the other cases I mentioned in this post. This case pulls a lot of precedence from those cases.<br /><br />Also to clarify and expand briefly on the "fighting words" case brought up here, it was most specifically addressed in class via Cohen v. California, which I touched on in this post.jdisishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564893565265248635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778296892059649551.post-22754972313937628812011-04-12T19:27:26.418-05:002011-04-12T19:27:26.418-05:00I am a little confused because in the fourth parag...I am a little confused because in the fourth paragraph you say "building inspector Joseph Schutzman"...but from the rest of the article I gather that Schutzman is actually the cop not the inspector. But after doing a little research I found out her is both the cop and also a building inspector...So that could have been clearer.<br /><br />Also, I would be interested in seeing where the "tests" come from that you used in your analysis. I just don't recognize them from 411 so I was interested in familiarizing myself with them. We talked about fighting words breifly in class but it seems this topic has more aspects considering a cop was involved. <br /><br />But in my opinion, there is no way anyone should be arrested for calling a cop a "fat slob." You should be able to speak freely and express your opinion, within reason and calmly, to everyone including police officers.tthanas22https://www.blogger.com/profile/13378010046958468979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778296892059649551.post-75957923668684800992011-04-12T15:22:33.583-05:002011-04-12T15:22:33.583-05:00Jill,
This is an interesting story. To be honest...Jill, <br /><br />This is an interesting story. To be honest, growing up, I've always been taught, "You need to respect police officers no matter." After reading this blog, however, I wonder why I've been taught that my whole life. There is no law demanding we address police officers with "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am." Is it the smart thing to do? Probably, but it's not a law. <br /><br />This case seems pretty cut and dry to me, but it completely challenges societal norms. Most would say, "No, you can't call an officer and asshole." But if you look at the letter of the law, yes, you can -- as long as you're not attempting to start a fight. <br /><br />In my opinion, the officer invovled in this case should be punished for his action. Just because you are an officer of the law doesn't give you the freedom to arrest citizens for showing you a lack of respect. The First Amendment protects our right to disagree with no only the government, but employees of the US and State government.Sam Zubanoreply@blogger.com