Hi All,

The ACLU emailed me today and has asked me to produce some documents before they will decide to take my case or not. I see this as a good sign as they have not said no yet to taking my case. It could get interesting. This is in regards to having my civil rights violated by being told no loud talking after 10 or loud TV.

I have to search for a local case where a woman cursed at her toilet and an off duty police officer had a duty one come and arrest her. It ended up setting a precident for freedom of speech.

It happened in Scranton about a year ago.
See what I can did up before I fall asleep.

http://www.<b>firstamendmentcenter.o....aspx?id=19210


Bowled over by toilet tirade ...

By Gene Policinski
First Amendment Center vice president/executive director
10.18.07
Comment? E-mail me

TOILET TIRADE: A person's home may still be his or her castle, but it remains to be decided in court if that means you get to curse loudly at the "throne" even when your moat is backing up.

Dawn Herb told The Times-Tribune of Scranton, Pa., that on Oct. 11 her toilet "was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling (for my daughter) to get the mop." She isn't certain exactly which words she used — in my view, whatever she said was entirely appropriate to the situation — but apparently they were loud, offensive and disturbing enough to gain the attention through an open window of her next-door neighbor. Who happens to be a local police officer.

The off-duty officer is reported to have asked Herb to keep it down, but when curses continued to cascade over these particular battlements, he called the police and Herb was charged with disorderly conduct. Herb says she will plead not guilty.

Expressing oneself loudly in the privacy of one's home would seem to come under — well under, in fact — the protections for free speech. And beyond the legalities of whether or not some particular words may reach a prosecutorial level, a closed window on the receiving side of the fence may seem a more appropriate "First Amendment-friendly" solution than calling in government forces to regulate the tirade of a neighbor that is wafting into the open air from inside her house.As my colleague and First Amendment Scholar David Hudson notes, profanity is protected by the First Amendment unless it crosses into a narrow category of fighting words — face-to-face personal insults that would likely provoke violence — or is uttered as part of a true threat. Time and again, courts have held that profanity is protected speech for adults in a general citizen setting.

SHIELD LAW: News organizations and long-time defenders of the First Amendment are hailing the Oct. 16 passing in the U.S. House of what could be the first federal protection for reporters wishing to keep secret their confidential sources. Those same groups and advocates are urging the U.S. Senate to act in the face of a threatened White House veto and criticism from Justice Department and agencies charged with keeping government secrets and carrying out anti-terror efforts.

There's one significant element in the proposed law that may well represent the "half-a-loaf-is-better-than-none" school of compromise and lawmaking. The Senate version of a shield law, which has received committee approval and is awaiting full chamber action, offers this expansive view of a journalist: in essence, anyone engaged in the regular dissemination of information to the public. This House-adopted bill would add a qualifier to that definition — "for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain" — that would seem to eliminate many bloggers, also known as "citizen journalists."

I am uncomfortable in general with confidential sources, given their overuse and misuse by some journalists through the years. But national polling results by the First Amendment Center of the public and journalists, as well as surveys by other groups, show that both groups see an occasional need for confidential sources for some stories.

The public is better-served when journalists disclose fraud, corruption and abuse of power by those in government as a result of information provided by those who, without confidentiality, would not come forward for fear of damage to reputation, career or family. But there's no requirement in the First Amendment's protection of a free press that it apply only to those for whom journalism provides a "substantial portion" of their income, or that anyone get "substantial financial gain" as a result of exercising that particular freedom.

Such a broad definition likely would doom the proposed law, raising the specter that "everyone" might claim to be a journalist when subpoenaed to testify about a confidential source. But it would seem a hearing to determine the issue of "substantial" compensation or gain might just as easily consider the purpose of the revealing story or blog — and as such stick closer to the undefined provision for a free press in the First Amendment.


Pa. woman in hot water for profanity-laced tirade at toilet
Dawn Herb, who was shouting curses at overflowing commode in her home, was overheard by off-duty cop, charged with disorderly conduct. 10.17.07

Pa. judge flushes toilet-tirade complaint
Court dismisses disorderly conduct charge, finding First Amendment protects woman who cursed in frustration at malfunctioning commode. 12.17.07


http://www.wtop.com/?nid=456&sid=1269488
SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) - A woman who was cited for loudly cursing at her overflowing toilet _ and then at a neighbor who told her to quiet down _ has been acquitted on First Amendment grounds.

District Judge Terrence Gallagher dismissed the disorderly conduct charge against Dawn Herb, 33, ruling Thursday that she was within her rights when she let loose a string of profanities Oct. 11.

Although the language she used "may be considered by some to be offensive, vulgar and imprudent ... (it is) protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment," the judge wrote.

Herb was cited after Patrick Gilman, a police officer who lives near Herb, called authorities to complain.

At a hearing Monday, Gilman testified that he was at home, off duty, when his 12-year-old daughter ran in and said she had heard loud curses coming from a house down the street.

Gilman said he went outside, heard the bad language and yelled out to Herb to "watch your mouth." He said that she cursed at him instead. That's when Gilman called authorities.

In Pennsylvania, someone can be convicted of disorderly conduct for using obscene language in a way that causes "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm."

But Barry Dyller, who represented Herb on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said rulings over the past 20 years have established that "colorful language" isn't illegal. He praised the judge's ruling.

"He's exactly right ... in his reasoning," Dyller said. "And it's important that the public understands this."

Herb did not testify at the trial earlier this week, and her lawyer advised her not to speak to reporters. She could have faced up to 90 days in jail.
http://willdo.pwblogs.com/tag/scranton-toilet-curser/