"Stop Snitching" T-shirts

[23queen5]

So somebody got the bright idea to make t-shirts that intimidate witnesses into keeping quiet. I just read an article about a Pennsylvania DA who can't win murder cases because her witnesses lie on the stand or run away.

What sort of recourse can we have against these shirts?

I say, unfortunately not much, even though they may lead to the slaying of witnesses, they're just shirts.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

So somebody got the bright idea to make t-shirts that intimidate witnesses into keeping quiet. I just read an article about a Pennsylvania DA who can't win murder cases because her witnesses lie on the stand or run away.

What sort of recourse can we have against these shirts?

I say, unfortunately not much, even though they may lead to the slaying of witnesses, they're just shirts.

I don't see how you have any recourse against wearing those shirts anymore than you would have (if the draft was still in effect) a person wearing a shirt that said "Fuc- the Draft"

I'll go find the caselaw...gimme a bit.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/77/

Cohen v. California
403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Docket Number: 299
Abstract

Argued:


February 22, 1971

Decided:


June 7, 1971

Subjects:


First Amendment: Free Exercise of Religion
Facts of the Case

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "**** THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR" The young man, Paul Cohen, was charged under a California statute that prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct." Cohen was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail.
Question Presented

Did California's statute, prohibiting the display of offensive messages such as "**** the Draft," violate freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment?
Conclusion

Yes. In an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone; besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket. Harlan recognized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." In doing so, the Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).

[Mitchell_in_CT]

The opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0015_ZO.html

Disent:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0015_ZD.html

[23queen5]

Mitchell thats some cool info.

I think that this case is a little different though. Because if someone wears the shirt into a courtroom. They are deliberately trying to scare, thus targeting, a witness out of testifying. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this.

Also, I'm aware of PC 415 (disturb. the peace) in California. But i wonder what the law is in PA.

[23queen5]

okay, so PA doesn't have a complete list of Criminal Laws online

what I could find was Title 18 Chapter 55 Section 5508
"A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he disturbs or interrupts it."*

*This is not the entire section. The rest of the section was not online. Maybe an LEO from PA can help us out.

I suppose (from the little I know about the section) that one might argue that a t-shirt that intimidates would "disturb" a procession such as witness cross-examination during a trial.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

I think that this case is a little different though. Because if someone wears the shirt into a courtroom. They are deliberately trying to scare, thus targeting, a witness out of testifying.

I have to disagree.

It will make an intresting test case.

The basic premis is correct, however. You can not do an effective investigation of a crime without witness cooperation. If people believe that the promise of "we'll protect you" is a lie, then they will keep quiet.

People have no obligation to talk to Law Enforcement. They have no duty to cooperate with you. They either do so because they want to...or they have to.

Instead of targeting a shirt and simply telling people to not wear it, which is fighting an idea, why not ask people to tell you why they are unwilling to talk to the police and address the root issue instead of a symptom.

Deal with the root cause of the problem, whatever that is, and the situation may change.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

okay, so PA doesn't have a complete list of Criminal Laws online

what I could find was Title 18 Chapter 55 Section 5508
"A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he disturbs or interrupts it."*

*This is not the entire section. The rest of the section was not online. Maybe an LEO from PA can help us out.

I suppose (from the little I know about the section) that one might argue that a t-shirt that intimidates would "disturb" a procession such as witness cross-examination during a trial.

It depends on if their is caselaw on the meaning of disturb.

If a group walked onto the town green wearing Nazi uniforms during a Chanukah candle lighting ceremony, but did nothing else, would that fall under disrupt in your opinion?

Maybe, maybe not.

Does mere presence of a person wearing clothing that conveys an idea, however offensive, constitute disruption or disturbing the peace?

[zap]

I think the answer you are looking for is not witness intimidation....or a repression of what would be protected speech. You are looking for the JUDGE to take CONTROL of HIS/HER courtroom!

Don't think about going into a courtroom with shorts or a 'wife-beater' tee shirt on....why not add "other innapropriate displays" ON the apparel??

Just a thought.

[23queen5]

zap,

this may be a dumb question, but can a judge throw someone out for wearing a certain type of clothing? or if someone is protesting something?

I'm not very knowledgable about judges' powers in this regard.

[Operator13]

So somebody got the bright idea to make t-shirts that intimidate witnesses into keeping quiet. I just read an article about a Pennsylvania DA who can't win murder cases because her witnesses lie on the stand or run away.

What sort of recourse can we have against these shirts?

I say, unfortunately not much, even though they may lead to the slaying of witnesses, they're just shirts.

Philadelphia seems to have a huge problem with this issue. The case most recently talked about was a child who was "caught in the cross fire". After the initial outrage everybody was willing to testify. By the time they got to court 6 witnesses re-canted saying they saw nothing!

Luckily there were still one or two that testified truthfully & the DA (Lynne Abraham) got the conviction. Now she is trying to establish a Witness Protection program for the City of Philadelphia.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/philadelphia_county/philadelphia/14209391.htm


The "Stop Snitching" (stop sign) shirts were popular around the mid-state for awhile. Now it's the "Warna Brotha" shirt. It's got the big "WB" emblem with the words " If you see da (sic) police, warna brutha ".

[Bing_Oh]

zap,

this may be a dumb question, but can a judge throw someone out for wearing a certain type of clothing? or if someone is protesting something?

I'm not very knowledgable about judges' powers in this regard.
Judges are one step below a god in their courtrooms. I've seen people removed from courtrooms by bailiffs for refusing to remove ball caps when entering and for chewing gum. It all depends on how strictly the judge controls his or her courtroom.

Contempt of Court is a wide-reaching power. When paired with the fact that judges are immune from civil litigation in the course of their duties, that makes them pretty much bulletproof.

[ftlaudcop]

they have disallowed postal workers ( letter carriers) in their official uniform,when it calls for shorts...all govt approved issue, so i would think they can throw out joe thug and his gold teeth too

[zap]

Judges are one step below a god in their courtrooms. I've seen people removed from courtrooms by bailiffs for refusing to remove ball caps when entering and for chewing gum. It all depends on how strictly the judge controls his or her courtroom.

Contempt of Court is a wide-reaching power. When paired with the fact that judges are immune from civil litigation in the course of their duties, that makes them pretty much bulletproof.


What he said ;)

[frank]

I think that they should not go after the saying..per-say for the snitching, but for the threat it sounds like. If people feel it is threatening, then take a vote on the issue of what can be thought as a threat on t-shirts.They have policies everywhere,They should also now a days follow that on wearable cloths too.
But then here is another thought...If someone is wearing that shirt it should give you a lead, if you know what I mean.I guess it's a two-way road on that issue.I say use it to your best advantage.
Pss...I would wear a shirt that Say's no more war and my quote{The government love's my money and not me!} ;) :rolleyes:


You could start..... A snitcher,could get richer :rolleyes:
{If you pay me or me give Pizza as food, you got me on your side dude! :D }
and I won't care if you use it for tax deductions or for the cause!

Here is one for you to figure out!
OTSOTL
That means
ISTB! :D

Oh yes here is one more,You might know him.

I take after.... The Dog!
Chapman rocks man! :D



You get the picture right? :rolleyes: