I want off the list please......



>===== Original Message From "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB)
Talk" <[log in to unmask]> =====
>For those of you who don't know about a Second Circuit case and the "bird"
look up "Bad Frog" (the appellant) decided January 1998, I think maybe 1997. I
use it with my undergrads because it catches their attention as it deals with
beer labeling and is a pretty good treatment
>of the constitutional issues related to protected business speech.
>See you all in Baltimore.
>Mary Ann
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Marsha Hass
>  To: [log in to unmask]
>  Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 3:17 PM
>  Subject: Fw: the bird
>
>
>  Judge says gesture protected by Constitution
>  The Associated Press
>  8/2/00 7:24 AM
>
>
>  FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (AP) -- A state trooper violated a man's constitutional
rights when he arrested him for gesturing with a finger, a federal judge says.
>
>  U.S. District Judge H. Franklin Waters ruled Tuesday that Wayne Nichols had
a constitutional right to display his middle finger to Trooper Jose Chacon and
the gesture was not prohibited by state law.
>
>  Nichols was arrested by Chacon on Aug. 6, 1998, for misdemeanor disorderly
conduct. He was later acquitted of the charge, and sued Chacon in federal
court.
>
>  Chacon argued in court filings that obscene gestures are considered
disorderly conduct by Arkansas law and that police officers can't be expected
to know the subtleties of First Amendment law.
>
>  But Waters said displaying a middle finger to a police officer is not
covered by state law. That law says disorderly conduct includes making an
obscene gesture "in a manner likely to promote a provoke a violent or
disorderly response," according to Waters.
>
>  But the judge said Nichols' gesture was unlikely to provoke anyone because
no one saw it but Chacon.
>
>  "While we agree the gesture utilized by Nichols was crude, offensive, and
disturbing to Chacon's sensibilities, it was not obscene under the relevant
Supreme Court precedent, did not constitute `fighting words,' and was
protected as `free speech' under the First Amendment," Waters
>wrote.
>
>  If Chacon doesn't file a notice by Thursday that he plans to appeal Waters'
decision, a trial will be held Tuesday for a jury to decide how much money in
damages Nichols will receive. The trial will be postponed if Chacon appeals.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Copyright 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.