The decision was in the case of a woman who was cited for “unreasonable use of a vehicle horn” after she honked an estimated 14 times as she drove past a protest outside the office of a California republican's office where extreme liberal left wingers were protesting as all protestors do lately, loudly and rudely. No one has a "sit in" like in the 50s, or a flower thing like the 60s, and sing a long like the 70s.
So, she made herself such a loud nuisance, that a cop gave her a ticket for being, a public nuisance, and that's not really a huge deal, it's just a stupid ticket to get the idiots attention that what they've been doing has been uncivilized, rude, and anti-peaceful protest "disturbing the peace - you know?
Because she either was altruistic and felt that blasting a horn was a freedom of speech facet, or because she was being a pig headed Karen and insisting on talking to the cops managers, she filed a civil suit in 2018 alleging that using her vehicle horn for expressive purposes, including but not limited to expressing support for political protests, rallies, or demonstrations - was a freedom of speech constitutional right.
She wanted the court to void California Vehicle Code section 27001 in order that what she calls “expressive honking” be recognized as protected free speech with First Amendment protections.
Section 27001 allows that a driver can use the horn to “insure safe operation,” and that it “shall not otherwise be used, except as a theft alarm system.” Clearly, the state govt is NOT enthusiastic about noisy horn honking. I'm ok with that, OR with the court deciding it IS free speech... BUT, thankfully, they thought about it, and a district court entered summary judgment in favor of a quiet state, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that decision was the right one
A witness for the state, California Highway Patrol Sgt. William Beck, testified that “when a vehicle horn is used improperly, it can create a dangerous situation by startling or distracting drivers” and that the “horn’s usefulness as a warning device would be diminished” if officers were unable to cite drivers for improper use. However as you already knew, cops are full of shit, and he was not able to give any example, not a single one in all American or world history of a specific accident or collision caused by the use of a vehicle horn.
Because she either was altruistic and felt that blasting a horn was a freedom of speech facet, or because she was being a pig headed Karen and insisting on talking to the cops managers, she filed a civil suit in 2018 alleging that using her vehicle horn for expressive purposes, including but not limited to expressing support for political protests, rallies, or demonstrations - was a freedom of speech constitutional right.
She wanted the court to void California Vehicle Code section 27001 in order that what she calls “expressive honking” be recognized as protected free speech with First Amendment protections.
Section 27001 allows that a driver can use the horn to “insure safe operation,” and that it “shall not otherwise be used, except as a theft alarm system.” Clearly, the state govt is NOT enthusiastic about noisy horn honking. I'm ok with that, OR with the court deciding it IS free speech... BUT, thankfully, they thought about it, and a district court entered summary judgment in favor of a quiet state, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that decision was the right one
A witness for the state, California Highway Patrol Sgt. William Beck, testified that “when a vehicle horn is used improperly, it can create a dangerous situation by startling or distracting drivers” and that the “horn’s usefulness as a warning device would be diminished” if officers were unable to cite drivers for improper use. However as you already knew, cops are full of shit, and he was not able to give any example, not a single one in all American or world history of a specific accident or collision caused by the use of a vehicle horn.
No comments:
Post a Comment