Kentucky criminalizes insulting police: Open Door to a Police State?

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (58 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 13 months ago

    Background:

    https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/03 … olice-bill

    Most troubling....

    This has got to be a harbinger toward a trend that will probably sell like hot cakes in red states.

    1. The definition for "insult" is very subjective and could be interpreted as a protester just sticking his or her tongue at an police officer.

    2. Are the police to be punished for provoking protesters with the same verbal/gesture abuse behavior? Who is to say they are not the instigators and where is the proof? Everybody better have their body cams on.

    3. This is an assault on free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble, right in line with basically muzzling dissent,

    4. Couldn't  help but notice a provision in the law that would suspend government services for 3 months for anyone convicted of this misdemeanor. It is not Richie Rich they are worried about, but those that are poor and the most vulnerable who protest. So, maybe now, we can get them all to just shut up or lose any and all social services.

    Under such restraint who would dare protest in the first place?

    A travesty in my opinion. Your thoughts

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Hopefully, this bill does not pass. It impinges on free speech. Words can do no physical. harm to an officer.

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Pleasant surprise from a conservative person, Sharlee, thanks....

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Your Welcome, I truly believe in free speech, the right to even scream and yell to share one's passion.  This is one reason the cancel culture makes me crazy. It poses a danger to free speech.

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I don't like this trending "cancel culture" movement either. I think it is harmful and dangerous, but . . . aren't supporters of it also exercising their Right of Free Speech?

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              If their right of free speech is to deny others their right of free speech does it still count?

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                It does count—until their exercise results in legislation. Without the legal force of legislation, we still have choices. And as long as we do have choices, then the exercise of their Right isn't infringing on my Rights.

                (damn, look at you, backing me into a position of defending these cancel-culture thugs. Geesh.) ;-)

                GA

            2. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Yes,  ultimately you are correct.  But, cancel culture poses real problems to others free speech. One that gets canceled out ultimately is having their right to free speech or a belief silenced, and ultimately punished for speaking out  Cancel culture works to cancel out free speech. 

              My comment lacked an explanation of my full thoughts on the subject. Go figure, and I am always complaining about context  Bad on me...

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I don't think you are wrong in your thoughts Sharee, I agree with you. I think this cancel-culture trend is a very dangerous `slippery-slope'. We can see the life-impacting results in our daily news.

                The newest 'related' issue might be the corporate blow-back to Georgia's recently passed election law changes. Even with the truth being the opposite of what is being declared, major corporations are hinting at economic blow-back. A good example of where this cancel-culture could lead.

                GA

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I have been following Biden's latest blunder...      Biden claims he would "strongly support" moving this year's Major League Baseball All-Star Game out of Georgia following the passage of Georgia's elections bill. A bill that clearly is being reported out of context. One only needs to read the bill.   First, he lies about the actual new voting laws Georgia just pasts, stating that the hours were changed to make it hard for some to vote.  This is not true,  in the new voting laws voting hours have actually been expanded, as well as weekend voting in some counties.  Georgia has added  9 days of early voting which is 9 days longer than New York's current law.   It is very true one will need a voter ID to obtain an absentee ballot. 

                  Biden's made a very derogatory statement yesterday which in my opinion is inflammatory, and he once again added a mistruth.  So much for his sentiment in regard to unifying the Nation.

                  Biden stated --   "Look at what's happened across the board. The very people who are victimized the most are the people who are the leaders in these various sports, and it's just not right," Biden said. "This is Jim Crow on steroids, what they're doing in Georgia and 40 other states."

                  The glaring lie --  "what they're doing in Georgia and 40 other states."
                  What other states?  He lied once again, and once again this lie very much appears to be race-baiting by bringing up "Jim Crow". 

                  Biden took a shot at canceling out the state of Georgia for acting on its right to change voting laws.  And he tossed in 40 unnamed states. Go figure!

                    What Does Georgia's New Voting Law SB 202 Do?  PBS
                  https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/27/wha … -sb-202-do

                    Bill 202 ----   https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … -as-passed

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Unfortunately, while the term "return to Jim Crow" is provocative, that is how I see the efforts of many states to make it more difficult to vote based on some rightwing pseudo outrage about security.

                    The Right needs to be warned that just like the massive minority turnout that defeated Trump last year, we see these efforts from so many state governments as an assault on our right to participate requiring a response equivalent to that of waking a sleeping giant in anger and filling him with a terrible resolve.

            3. Ken Burgess profile image87
              Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Indeed, a nation founded on the ideas of individual liberty and personal freedom, free markets, free minds, is now in the process of washing away those very things.

              Its intriguing to watch these things occur, Facebook makes anything with Trump's voiceprint unpublishable on their site, Twitter follows suit.

              The ability to communicate beliefs and ideas, silenced.

              The BLM movement co-opted by all major corporations, including institutions like the NBA, becoming a construct not just of civil rights, but the marketplace.

              In truth the corporations are in control... Facebook, Google and Twitter can effectively silence anyone they want, whenever they want.  No politician... not even the President has the authority or power to overcome them.

              Exxon/Mobil, Amazon, etc. have the laws written to favor them while operating tax free, or better yet, with government subsidies.

              With just a basic understanding of how international banking, investing and corporations (corporatism) works today and the ability to project out where technologies like crypto-currency, cash-aps, artificial intelligence and data gathering are leading us, one should be able to recognize the world is on the verge of a major transformation and no nation will be impacted more than America.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                No doubt about much of what you say, Ken, for it all sucks....

              2. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                "In truth the corporations are in control... Facebook, Google and Twitter can effectively silence anyone they want, whenever they want.  No politician... not even the President has the authority or power to overcome them."

                Agreeing with that thought is the only, and best, response to your comment Ken. And I completely agree.

                Corporations and Big Money have been striving for such control since Getty and Morgan. Now they have achieved it. Not just through control of the legislative action, (although they do have the power there too), but also through control of the populace thought.

                Just imagine the anguish of today's populace if they didn't have Facebook and Twitter.  As a dinosaur, I laugh at their anguish. They deserve it. To our detriment, we are becoming a nation of `screens'. Kill the screens and the populace is helpless.

                GA

          2. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I am opposed to any such restraint on free speech, much of it appearing as part of this cancel-culture. But, I will always those that speak responsible for what they say.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Very much agree

    2. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      ♫ clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right . . . ♫

      There is so much wrong with the thoughts behind that bill.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I remember the song, quite appropo.

        Who are the thinkers behind the thoughts, who do you think that they affiliate with?

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          You are asking for a guess. I am feeling charitable, so I will offer one; I think fundamental Baptist-type conservatives are behind it.

          I don't think insulting cops is a good thing, or a thing that should be ignored, or a good use of the Right to free speech, but that's just life. We take the good with the bad.

          This type of legislation is as harmful as the sponsors think it is justifiable.

          GA

  2. MG Singh profile image73
    MG Singhposted 13 months ago

    Generally in democracies criticizing and castigating the police is a fashion. Nothing much should be read into this law and if it passes, I see nothing wrong with it.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Excuse me if I am partial toward democracies and the democratic process  accepting most "excesses" easily over any alternative to democracy.

      As a result, I see sach legislation as a threat with EVERYTHING wrong with it.

  3. Castlepaloma profile image74
    Castlepalomaposted 13 months ago

    Not even farting in their general direction.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      That will get you arrested, Castle.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        And in some cases, it might even qualify as assault with a lethal weapon. ;-)

        GA

  4. wilderness profile image93
    wildernessposted 13 months ago

    From the link given, this proposal seems imminently reasonable. 

    “All of those actions combined would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response,” he says, adding that videos of people seen insulting officers have no other purpose than to invoke a violent response, for example."

    This seems akin to shouting "FIRE" in a movie theater - the purpose of the speech is to incite violence and hurt people, and the insulting of police is doing exactly the same thing.

    On the other hand is another quote from the link: "An argument against the bill is that the purpose of that speech is that those individuals without real power are crying out for justice. And the American Civil Liberties Union in Kentucky has opposed the bill, saying that it criminalizes speech."  This, too, seems a reasonable stance - that people (setting aside the "without real power", for that has zero to do with it) have the right of free speech.

    The call, then comes down as to the purpose and desired outcome of that free speech.  Speech intended to incite a riot is illegal (think the claims that Trump did just that), speech intended to harm a person is illegal (think libel or slander), speech designed to cause harm in nearly every way is illegal.

    Is it really any different when insulting a cop is intended to incite violence on the part of that cop?  When it is intended to start a riot rather than a peaceful protest? 

    Tough call, but it seems to me that it is a reasonable law...given that it is not abused.  As nearly every law is abused, either by criminals or by law enforcement, perhaps it really should come down to a jury of peers in a courtroom.

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      So, if I get in a cop's face and call him a piece of shit he is justified in losing control and punching me in the face for doing so? Is that the gist of your thought?

      Maybe I am looking at it wrongly. My view is through the lens of that old `sticks and stones' adage.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        What is your intention in saying that?  The cops reaction may not be reasonable, but what is your intention?  Why did you say it?

        The obvious answer is to cause the reaction you got; the spark to set off a riot.  And that was my point; the intention in calling "FIRE!" in a theatre is the same as your was - to cause people to be hurt.  Or at least I see to difference.

        And if there is no difference should your action be legal because we expect the cop to control himself?  I would disagree.  If the action was illegal in one case then it is illegal in all cases.  Keep in mind that I am not excusing the action of the cop in punching you, but neither will I excuse your efforts to start a riot.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, Wilderness, I expect the cop to restrain himself to a greater degree, as the recipient of my tax dollars and and as public servant.

          We all know that if it is just the law enforcement officer's interpretation of "assault", all of the protesters will find themselves in the paddy wagon straight away.

          The "Fire" analogy is quite lame and completely irrelevant, sorry.

          Police are just as capable of initiating conflict in such a circumstance as the protestors. I am certainly not going to let them decide "what is over the top" without an objective standard.

          I say that the law is bad and that the conservatives will be challenged over it.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Expecting the cop to restrain himself does not address the question of the reason for the insult.

            I'll repeat: we exclude speech designed and intended to cause harm to others from the concept of "free speech".  Why should the verbiage intended and designed to start a riot be any different?  This is not  a "lame" excuse; it is exactly the same - a person intending to cause harm, using their words to do so.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              If I call a cop a jerk, he could take that as an insult or verbal assault inciting to riot,  would the officer have authority to arrest me on that?

              "Provocation" as define in the law is basically reduced to whatever the police say it is.


              Police and protesters interacting are not engaged in whispering sweet nothings in each other's ears. This is an attempt to discourage any protest
              Period and it will not stand with the forces on the left. We are going to litigate this one to death.

        2. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I might say that because I just watched, (or suffered from), the cop do something shitty.

          Your example presumes the intention to incite. My example's intent could have been to simply insult the cop, not draw a particular action.

          Some cases of insulting may be intended exactly as you foresee, but I think the majority of incidences are simply jerks being jerks thinking they are superior because of their witty or venomous insults.

          I think there are more things wrong with this concept than the single benefit of being able to hold riot agitators, (those that would yell FIRE!),  accountable.

          GA

  5. emge profile image81
    emgeposted 13 months ago

    Somethings are required, the police have a thankless job, yet they are at the receiving end all the time.

  6. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 13 months ago

    I don't see a problem with this bill.  We need to get back to a place where police officers are respected. 

    "if the individual “accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.”

    The key here is "from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person."  This is in so many laws.  So, what is reasonable?  If you are going to insult and taunt a police officer just to insult or taunt them, you need to held responsible.  This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with respect for authority.  Police should not have to tolerate such treatment.  They put their lives on the line every day they go to work.  I know many police officers.     

    This is from a guy who has had some bad experiences with police. 

    I would like to see similar bills passed in all 50 states.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for weighing, Mike. It is natural that I am going to disagree with your assessment.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Cred,

        Thanks.  I know we would disagree.  The key to the law is the "perspective of a reasonable and prudent person."  What is reasonable and prudent is always going to be based on case law.  This is a standard that used in determining everything from slip and fall cases to car accidents and more. 

        Cases brought on this law will ultimately be decided by a judge's decision on what is "reasonable and prudent" behavior for a person.

        I'm sure there will be rulings from judges on these types of cases we will both disagree with.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          So, Mike, we are to have more litigation over whether some one called some one else a name?

          Meanwhile, until it is determined what is in fact reasonable and prudent, the suspect is taken from the streets and arrested? That is one quick way to disperse a gathering that is an otherwise First Amendment guarantee, don't you think?

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            You can gather and say whatever you want.  Leave the police out of it.  I don't think why being belligerent with police is necessary.  So, leave the police alone and there is no reason to disperse a gathering that is peacefully protesting.  With rights come responsibilities.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              That is just the problem, police do interfere in peaceful protests and if they stayed out of it, we would have no need to ratchet things up.

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                If there are no laws being broken, they won't interfere.  One of the first things is to do what is requested by the police.   "need to ratchet things up"  Again, with rights comes responsibilities.  Ratcheting things up for any reason remove the word "peaceful" from protest.

                I've been to many protests.  Ones that have been peaceful and ones that got out of hand.  The police have never been the problem.  It is the protestors.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Fine, but we also watching the police and holding them accountable for any excesses on their part. You can count on that.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Peaceful protests are a powerful tool to communicate your message.

                    When you have protests without any violence and just speaking and talking...more people will pay attention to you.  If there is belligerence or violence...the message gets lost.  The violence or belligerence is what people remember and think about.  When you have a calm and sincere protest...it is much easier for those you are trying to reach to hear you.  They are able to focus on your message and nothing else.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)