The couple with the infamous "F Trump and Sheriff Nehls" signs on their truck

[rp_photo]

This is where the right to free speech and common sense don't intersect. Sure they have the right to (with the F word being debatable) but they are magnets for road rage, vandalism, and causing accidents by distracting others as well as the obstructed view from the rear window. Add the Sheriff's name to the mix and you're really playing with fire. And if either are concealed carriers or have weapons on board, the provocative factors could work against them should a defensive shooting occur.

I'm thinking that doing something like this would an absolute no for a responsible concealed carrier or anyone else who keeps a weapon in their vehicle, and anyone who is driving another vehicle under those circumstances has an extra duty to not engage them however tempting it may be.

[pushpullpete]

I swear, a lot, much more than I should & I know it. However, I believe that there really is a time & a place for everything.
Far too many people are so concerned with their '15 minutes of fame' and how they can extend that time frame that any
consideration for how their thoughts and actions will effect others are basically non-existent. Putting words like that on
public display on your private property, yes it is covered by the 1st amendment, but common sense was NOT a consideration
for the truck owner. I don't like having to explain somebodys thoughtless actions to my grandchidren when a little bit of
'simple comon sense' should tell you that it might be a bad idea that will offend most good people. Unfortunately, this is the
world we live in today.

[Oldgringo]

This is where the right to free speech and common sense don't intersect. Sure they have the right to (with the F word being debatable) but they are magnets for road rage, vandalism, and causing accidents by distracting others as well as the obstructed view from the rear window. Add the Sheriff's name to the mix and you're really playing with fire. And if either are concealed carriers or have weapons on board, the provocative factors could work against them should a defensive shooting occur.

I'm thinking that doing something like this would an absolute no for a responsible concealed carrier or anyone else who keeps a weapon in their vehicle, and anyone who is driving another vehicle under those circumstances has an extra duty to not engage them however tempting it may be.

I'm thinking doing something like this would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult.

[spectre]

I'm thinking doing something like this would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult.

Only making minimum payments on a credit card would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal.

Having kids you can't afford without government assistance would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal.

Voting to reelect politicians who raise the debt ceiling would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal.

[Oldgringo]

I'm thinking doing something like this would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult.

Only making minimum payments on a credit card would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal.

Having kids you can't afford without government assistance would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal.

Voting to reelect politicians who raise the debt ceiling would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal.

I was speaking to dignity and decorum not legalities. What is your point?

[Soccerdad1995]

I think they should have the right to post these signs, as protected speech under the first amendment. But they may face consequences.

I have the right to drive into Houston's 3rd Ward, and walk up to a group of "persons of color" shouting out racially based insults. That is my constitutional right. And after one or more of those gentlemen punches me in the face, in respond to my provocation, they should face no legal issues, IMHO (we can debate the legal ramifications if they go beyond a single punch). The same situation should apply for these morons who are actively trying to provoke a violent reaction.

And yes, if they do use a handgun in a self defense scenario, they would likely lose any presumption of justified self defense given that they provoked the attack.

[allisji]

I'm thinking doing something like this would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult.

I agree.

Only making minimum payments on a credit card would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal..

I can think of a few situations that could make this not an absolute. I've never made a minimum payment on a credit card, but after Hurricane Harvey I've thought about it a time or two, and could easily justify doing it for a period or time.

Having kids you can't afford without government assistance would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal..

Again, I think I understand where you're coming, but would add a caveat... this in my opinion is not a justification for abortion. Have the baby, and consider the adoption route.

Voting to reelect politicians who raise the debt ceiling would be an absolute NO for any responsible adult, but it's not illegal.

What is the alternative? Are you saying that no one who has voted for a politician who has agreed to a debt ceiling increase is responsible? What if the alternative is to not vote, and thereby allow the election of a politician who will only increase the debt ceiling even more?

You're definition of absolute must be different from mine.

[SQLGeek]

The local media has been making as much hay over this as they can.

Sheriff Nehls is my sheriff and I like him quite a bit. He has shown true leadership time and again in this county, especially in times of crisis.

From the original Facebook post, I don't think he ever intended to bring disorderly conduct charges and wanted to find a solution that didn't involve charges while still responding to the numerous complaints he received from the citizens of this county. I'm sure he wishes he had left well enough alone.

I certainly don't see a conspiracy to go after anti-Trumpers.

I do have to question the intelligence of the woman putting that stuff on her truck and bringing undue attention to herself while probably knowing she had an existing warrant for fraud.

[puma guy]

The local media has been making as much hay over this as they can.

Sheriff Nehls is my sheriff and I like him quite a bit. He has shown true leadership time and again in this county, especially in times of crisis.

From the original Facebook post, I don't think he ever intended to bring disorderly conduct charges and wanted to find a solution that didn't involve charges while still responding to the numerous complaints he received from the citizens of this county. I'm sure he wishes he had left well enough alone.

I certainly don't see a conspiracy to go after anti-Trumpers.

I do have to question the intelligence of the woman putting that stuff on her truck and bringing undue attention to herself while probably knowing she had an existing warrant for fraud.

I would bet both she and her husband have had run-ins with the law.

[Abraham]

Tasteless people exposing themselves!

These are the same folks who would've gone bonkers if Obama and/if one or more of his minions was insulted in such a manner..., but then, ...who cares what they do...?

They're simply the unwashed, under educated American peasantry doing their darnedest to be offensive....ignore them.

They deserve zero attention...

[parabelum]

This isn’t freedom of speech. How does a sign/sticker speak? I never got that. Anyways.

Where do you draw line? How about a pornographic image plastered all over the car? Hey, freedom of speech, right?

I find this distasteful and think it shouldn’t be allowed in sane and orderly society, not because of my disagreement with the message, but because it infringes on my freedom to be free from the obscenities. Call it religious reason if you will.

Their freedom to be free includes my freedom to be free from their filth.

[Soccerdad1995]

This isn’t freedom of speech. How does a sign/sticker speak? I never got that. Anyways.

Where do you draw line? How about a pornographic image plastered all over the car? Hey, freedom of speech, right?

I find this distasteful and think it shouldn’t be allowed in sane and orderly society, not because of my disagreement with the message, but because it infringes on my freedom to be free from the obscenities. Call it religious reason if you will.

Their freedom to be free includes my freedom to be free from their filth.

I appreciate the sentiment but I respectfully disagree. Banning signs, and other forms of "speech" because they are offensive to some people is a very slippery slope, and it's one that is best avoided, IMHO.

[allisji]

This isn’t freedom of speech. How does a sign/sticker speak? I never got that. Anyways.

Where do you draw line? How about a pornographic image plastered all over the car? Hey, freedom of speech, right?

I find this distasteful and think it shouldn’t be allowed in sane and orderly society, not because of my disagreement with the message, but because it infringes on my freedom to be free from the obscenities. Call it religious reason if you will.

Their freedom to be free includes my freedom to be free from their filth.

I appreciate the sentiment but I respectfully disagree. Banning signs, and other forms of "speech" because they are offensive to some people is a very slippery slope, and it's one that is best avoided, IMHO.

It's the whole hate speech debate... The left wants to define hate speech such that they can silence conservative voices. no matter where the line is drawn today, it will move one direction or the other in time. For example, I might be for banning a display such as this on the back of a pickup... So what about the mudflaps with the silhouette of the naked ladies on them? That could be offensive to some, but it's just a silhouette... I would never display them on my vehicle and would probably be willing to kindly recommend a friend to remove them from one of theirs. What about the large hanging testicles that some folks hang from their trailer hitches? I would probably be for banning them... but I can't ban my neighbors dog from displaying it's testicles, or farmer Joe's prized bull. I would never want someone to ban me from displaying the nativity scene that I have in front of my house this season or a cross, but I suppose someone could decide that it's offensive one day.

[ninjabread]

Government-approved and popular speech doesn't need the protection of the First Amendment, but the Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights for some reason.

[striker55]

I'm guessing yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is okay now.