Freedom of Speech

Court Silences Man Who Painted Protest Sign on His House

|

William Bowden painted "Screwed by the Town of Cary" on his house after a road-widening project (allegedly) directed runoff onto his property, damaging his North Carolina home. Within hours, zoning officials paid him a visit, ordering him to remove the sign or pay fines of up to $500 for each day of noncompliance.

When Bowden sued, the town argued the sign was a safety hazard for passing motorists. Officials presented no evidence for this assertion—no studies or experts. An estimated 15,000 drivers passed the sign every day for months and, according to court testimony, had precisely zero accidents (p. 16).

Nevertheless, in January a federal appeals court ruled the sign had caused "traffic problems" because:

…the bright fluorescent lettering sprayed across Bowden's home distracted both a Cary police officer and a passing motorist, who "beeped his horn" to get the officer's attention.

The decision upholds the town's sign code, which limits public displays to a certain size—but contains exemptions for art and holiday decorations. Bowden argued the ordinance falls afoul of the First Amendment's requirement that speech restrictions be content neutral. The code improperly permits, for instance, a sign that says "Merry Christmas" but allows officials to censor speech they find objectionable.

The judges, who voted 3-0 for the town, were not impressed. From the hearing:

"If we take your argument, though, aren't we … essentially saying that each house is a billboard for protest signs, and that you could just drive down the street, just every house having something painted that they wanted everybody to see, and nobody could do anything?" asked Judge Max Cogburn…. "The town's totally powerless to stop it, based on size, color, anything else?"

Because we just can't have people who aren't hurting anyone doing whatever they want.

The decision puts the 4th Circuit out of step with other courts, which have struck down similar speech restrictions. Click here and here for Reason coverage of those cases.

No word yet on whether Bowden's estate—he passed away in 2011—will appeal to the Supreme Court. However, a trial court in the same circuit will hear a case with similar facts this week. Norfolk, VA officials are threatening a businessman with $1,000-a-day fines for a banner protesting plans to seize his property via eminent domain. Enforcement is obviously content based—officials had no problem with many signs, some of them much larger, that didn't happen to be criticizing the government.

H/T: Courthouse News

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

570 responses to “Court Silences Man Who Painted Protest Sign on His House

  1. Because fuck you, that’s why!

    1. Both signs look like art. Different styles, but still art.

    2. I was surprised that there were 313 comments on a first amendment/ zoning case. Isn’t there some kind of football-related place where you could dicuss this shit?

      1. Yeah, fuck the super hurl. I completely made no effort to even turn it on.

      2. who pissed in your oatmeal this morning?

    3. I never get tired of that.

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KD3K…..-s-why.jpg

  2. Thank you, h&r, for squelching the nearly optimistic mood I woke with this morning.

    1. What the. I didn’t mean.
      What the

      1. Meanwhile,

        Court Silences Man Who Painted Protest Sign on His House.

        https://reason.com/blog/2013/02…..-protest-s

        1. Because fuck you, that is why.

        2. Silenced him hell. He’s dead now, right?

  3. Paging I.J.
    C’mon, you guys.

    1. I’ve said before that they need a bat-signal or something.

      1. A boot on the face will do fine.

      2. they need a bat-signal or something.

        We wouldn’t need street lamps.

  4. I drove past this house several times, I thought it was hilarious.

    1. And trust me, all these people along this stretch of road have indeed been screwed.

    2. I live just on the free side of the Republik of Cary border.

      I thought people moved there precisely because of all the restrictions.

      1. We are just over the line as well. There was talk of annexation, but thankfully we were spared!

  5. Kneel before the power of zoning!

    I SAID KNEEL!

    1. Zoning, Zod-ing, it’s all the same. KNEEL BEFORE IT

  6. I wonder if these judges woke up on the morning of the hearing and thought, “We must not let the first amendment get in the way of the state’s sensibilities.”

    God, what fascist pigs.

  7. [Y]ou could just drive down the street, just every house having something painted that they wanted everybody to see, and nobody could do anything?” asked Judge Max Cogburn[.]

    Aww, those poor motorists.

    How did Cogburn become a judge when he doesn’t have any idea about the First Amendment?

      1. So Rand Paul abstained, wasn’t present, or voted for this ‘tard?

        1. He voted for him.

          Udall, Boxer, Hutchinson and Inhofe abstained.

          1. So I guess he didn’t spend time looking over his record (if in fact his record indicated he was an enemy of the 1stA)?

            1. Pretty much. I guess researching the people you vote to confirm for the judiciary for life is just too damn hard.

              1. He was a private lawyer in Asheville at the time, so he really didn’t have a record to research.

                1. Interesting. It would seem to me a good senator would want a candidate to have a public record so it could be scrutinized.

                2. They couldn’t get a feel for the guy in the 10 years he was a Federal District Court Magistrate or the dozen years he was a US Attorney?

                  1. I didn’t see the magistracy, but that was from 95 to 04. Things change in 7 years.

                    You can’t really judge someone’s likely performance as a judge from their time as a US Attorney, who’s essentially a hired gun.

                    1. Bullshit, Tulpa. It tells what kind of cases they like to pursue as well as their mode of prosecution and the Constitutionality they acknowledge in their pursuit of a case.

                    2. As a US Attorney though the Constitutionality they acknowledge is whatever helps their case. You can’t expect them to argue in good faith what they believe the Constitution says, or even what they THINK it should say.

      2. Those political donations aren’t going to lick themselves, you know.

    1. Actually, if this case does reach the SCOTUS, strict scrutiny should prevail and this judge will be put in his place.

  8. Speaking about people not knowing what the First Amendment is all about, the White House issues a press release threatening people who may photoshop the image of Obama shooting a shotgun (at an odd angle for skeet or trap).

    From the release (emphasis mine): “This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”

    Um, yeah.

    1. So, they don’t want anyone shopping it so the shotgun is at the proper angle for skeet?

      1. Here are a few shoops. Some are funny, some are meh.

        But still, who the fuck do these assholes think they are? Those are fair use, seeing as he works for us and we paid for the photographer to be there.

    2. Not that the O-admin would never issue an unconstitutional order or advisory, but I think that it all hinges on that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

      Criticism (and nearly all other uses) wouldn’t run afoul of that restriction.

      1. But His Majesty thinks he needs to lay that out for us. It’s not like, I don’t know, THE LAW already permits that or anything. His Highness needs to let us peons know what He has permitted us to do, and what would constitute lese-majeste.

      2. “This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph.”

        Uh….read that again.

    3. Not that it in any way reduces the stupidity of the warning, but I think they put that on all their photos.

      1. Yeah, but their hubris in issuing this declaration on any photo is absurd. They all need to die in a fucking fire.

        1. Sure, but it was hardly “a press release,” just an asinine and probably inoperative boilerplate statement.

    4. Sloopy, in our new post-partisan, post-racial, post-rational America, it is treason to offend his Majesty’s Presidential dignity.

      L?se majest? cannot be tolerated. The authors of the Bill of Rights couldn’t have possibly foreseen something as dangerous as Photoshop.

      1. Hmmm…speaking of which, shouldnt he be using a musket in that photo?

    5. The current copyright laws state that any work produced by the US govt other than the NASA logo or postage stamps is not copyrightable. Maybe BO should have hired a private photographer.

      And even if it were copyrightable, the parodies would obviously be protected by fair use.

    6. This is absolutely the surest way to have photoshops done.

      1. Also, that looks like a sure way to make your shoulder hurt. Even with the extra vent. Nice shotugn, though.

        1. You’re looking at it the wrong way, Brett. This photo proves that Obama is a fucking brilliant shot, as only a true marksman could wait until the clay pigeon is a mere 5 feet off the deck before breaking it.

          Just more proof of his near-superhuman abilities.

          1. I was talking more of how high the butt is on his shoulder. If you halve your surface area for absorbing the recoil, you double the force on the remaining area. Also, I want to see the clays before I comment on his marksmanship. I can fire a shotgun at any angle. Hitting something is harder.

            1. Well, all I can say is that if this is skeet shooting, it’s the most unorthodox skeet shooting in the history of the sport. And if he’s been doing it all along, let’s see some of him before his hair got as gray as it is here. I’m sorry, but this doesn’t pass the smell test and was likely taken sometime in the past week and put in front of a summer background.

              I call bullshit.

              1. Yeah this thing was so obviously snapped sometime after he lied about it and when the people called for a photo to be released.

                There literally is nothing too petty for this motherfucker to lie about. Remember when he claimed he was going to join the Army but there was no war when he graduated high school. Because President Mom Jeans would have been a total fucking badass but there was no need for his extreme competence.

              2. It’s supposed to be from last August. He was already pretty gray then.

                And there is a witness who also told FoxNews some fairly unflattering things about BO, so it’s probably a legit photo.

              3. Sorry – wingnuts, birthers, skeeters.

                McClatchy reported Obama shot skeet back in 2010.

                http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201…..n-all.html

                1. He shoots skeet with a rifle? What a badass.

                  Haha. Shreek wins the internet (ironically) on Supre Bowl Sunday.

                2. Also, reporting that he said he shot a rifle doesn’t mean he did. Remember he also said Obamacare would lower premiums and we all know how that worked out for us.

          2. Looking more closely, I now think he’s elevating the barrel, it’s just the camera is tilted clockwise. The trees in the background seem to lean toward the left. Of course that means he’s leaning backward, obviously not good technique.

            1. Are you out of your fucking mind? I mean, I know how you like to huff paint on the weekends but this analysis is beyond retarded.

              1. I don’t think so. Retards would agree with me on this one. Look at the trees!

                1. I have. Here’s the official White House pic on their flickr feed. How in the fucking hell do you get that the trees are leaning one way?

                  Oh nevermind. When one leans as far to the right as you do, everything else looks like it leans to the left.

            2. no no no
              he’s standing at the top of a hill, and the skeets are in a valley. When they are at the zenith it’s a level shot.

              #whatdoiwin

            3. Tulpa, sometimes I tempted to think you might actually be worth taking seriously, but you really are just a troll arent you?

              Jesus, and you teach? I’d fire your ass in a second.

    7. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way

      Surely if the WH were serious they would have used “shall not”.

    8. Looks like a Franchi. I’ll need to sell mine.

  9. “If we take your argument, though, aren’t we ? essentially saying that each house is a billboard for protest signs, and that you could just drive down the street, just every house having something painted that they wanted everybody to see, and nobody could do anything?” asked Judge Max Cogburn?. “The town’s totally powerless to stop it, based on size, color, anything else?”

    Checking the 1st Amendment for that exception…mmmmmmm….nope…”no law”…nope…aaaaand nope.

    Yeah, fuckchuckle, that’s exactly how it works.

    1. I’ve always found Christmas decorations to be very distracting*, and I’ll bet many other motorists would agree.

      *I do not endorse limiting Christmas displays or probably any other display if it’s approved by the owner of the property it’s on.

      1. Founders could not have possibly foreseen something as dangerous and distracting as roadside Christmas displays.

        Ban it.

      2. Here in Maine there is a largely unenforced law requiring that all Christmas decorations be put taken down by 1/14.

        One of those statutes they trot out when they can use it against someone they don’t like.

        1. One of those statutes they trot out when they can use it against someone they don’t like.

          This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. No way in hell would anyone not apply the law equally, sarcasmic. It’s right there in the 14th Amendment.

          1. You’re right. There’s no way a cop would pull that law out of his ass when someone with a lawn display failed to show sufficient respect.

            I’m just succumbing to my inner bigot.

            1. Did you say failed to show sufficient respect? I thought that got you tazed a couple of times.*

              *Bonus points for the cop finding a mentally handicapped victim to fuck up.

            2. No way a cop is going to remember such an obscure law. You’d need a prosecutor for a dick move like that.

    2. If it really were distracting to drivers the town MIGHT have a case. Though they would have to come up with some seriously strong evidence to support that claim.

      What I don’t like about this guys defense is that it seemingly doesn’t have a problem with banning all speech equally, which would serve the town’s purposes of shutting down speech just as well.

      1. Yes. As I wrote, if the case went before SCOTUS, strict scrutiny would apply, and the town would be in the hot seat trying to prove the sign caused public harm. SS, and seeing that other courts have struck down similar laws from other places, indicates this case would be an easy win for the plaintiff.

    3. This was dealt with in Episode 4 of “House of Cards”

    4. fuckchuckle

      Best word ever. Totally stealing.

  10. […]approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

    So mocking or decrying the photo should be OK, right?

  11. [quote]”If we take your argument, though, aren’t we ? essentially saying that each house is a billboard for protest signs, and that you could just drive down the street, just every house having something painted that they wanted everybody to see, and nobody could do anything?” asked Judge Max Cogburn?. “The town’s totally powerless to stop it, based on size, color, anything else?” [/quote]

    What does he think freedom of speech means? “Shall make no law”. Yes, the town would be “powerless” and that’s the whole point.

    A suburban street lined with houses with painted political signs would be awesome, in my opinion. “NObama!” followed by “Change we can believe in!” followed by “Cuz fuck you, that’s why!”

    1. The judge’s statement is especially stupid given that the town never gave him the option of posting a sign with a different color or size. So those are red herrings.

      1. Yup. I wonder how this would turn out on appeal

  12. [T]he town would be “powerless” and that’s the whole point.

    But you see, that frightens the statists; the government should always have the last word, you see. How dare the Constitution forbid the town from imposing its will as it sees fit!

    1. That’s why the whole “compelling state interest” doctrine is odious. So far it hasn’t resulted in much overt abuse, but it lays the groundwork, and is completely extra-constitutional

  13. Reason, your “reply to this” link is not working for me.

    1. Works for me.

    2. Reason, your “reply to this” link is not working for me.

      It worked when you posted this.

      1. Seems to be now. It just seemed some of my posts were kinda appearing all over the place.

        1. Little early for the sauce, isn’t it? Wait ’till half-time.

          1. What? No such thing. Working on #3 here already.

            1. I switched from beer to whiskey at the start of the second.

              1. So did the 49ers defense.

                1. Hi-Yo!

      2. Prove it

        1. Whoa, Mary. You just blew my mind.

  14. From the article:

    But that argument, Judge Paul Niemeyer interjected, seems “inconsistent with the whole scheme of towns having the ability to regulate the aesthetics of the town,” which has been upheld in many previous cases, according to the judge.

    I didn’t realize towns had the explicit power to control the way private property looks. Has this ever been challenged on 1stA grounds? I don’t think it passes the smell test.

    1. they do. that’s what zoning is about. but the issue here is the signage restrictions that aren’t content neutral. a town can zone for instance a residential area with all sorts of aesthetic restrictions. it’s a rare jurisdiction that does NOT have such restrictions.

      zoning regulates all sorts of aesthetics- building height, for instance.

      the constitutionality of zoning laws were established in 1926

      Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co..

      1. Zoning requirements =/= telling someone what they can put up within the guidelines of the requirements. And I’m sorry, but regulating what someone writes on a house that meets the zoning laws is an infringement of the 1A Rights we all enjoy.

        If the house itself meets the zoning requirements, he is free to paint it whatever color he wants, including mostly white with black shutters and red trim that happens to spell out words.

        1. well, duh

          zoning requirements DO have aesthetic components which is my point.

          i suggest you read the underlying case. it’s enlightening as to the constitutionality of zoning laws and has stood the test of many decades of review

          1. Dunphy comes out in favor of fascism, cites marginally related precedent as support, news at 11.

  15. Why is it called football?
    90% of the time the ball is being held in the hands, and it’s not even a ball, it’s an egg!
    It should be called hand-egg!

    1. That’s gold, Jerry! Gold!

      1. Look at me – I’m huge!

    2. Pissing off Euros isn’t a good enough explanation?

  16. Some years ago a guy in the neighborhood painted his car yellow and covered it with plastic lemons and signs advising people to call him before they bought that make. As far as I know, he was never cited for causing distractions. Of course, he wasn’t offending anyone local, except possibly the dealer.

  17. “The town’s totally powerless to stop it, based on size, color, anything else?”

    Horrifying, isn’t it?

    Robert Mugabe wouldn’t put up with that shit.

  18. Superbowl?
    THANK GOD FOR NETFLIX

  19. Well, all I can say is that if this is skeet shooting, it’s the most unorthodox skeet shooting in the history of the sport.

    Don’t be silly. The man has preternaturally sharp reflexes and eye-hand co-ordination, and can hit the clay on the rise. He barely allows it to clear the little catapult before blasting it to smithereens.

    1. It’s the doctrine of preemptive skeet. Shoot the pigeon before they throw it.

  20. The Kiwis breakdown the Super Bowl!

    1. crap it’s an AP article.

      1. Yeah, I didn’t suspect that those sheep-shagging Aussie-wannabees knew anything about American football.

        Seriously, though, I wish somebody could have talked Jonah Lomu into playing football when he was at his best. I think he would have been a stud.

        1. Although here’s a guide for Aussies

  21. i’m sorry,but this case is ripe for being overturned. it is clearly NOT content neutral. you can’t allow sign exemptions for art (however subjective THAT is btw) and holiday stuff, but not allow them for the most important form of speech – political protest.

    i’d like to see what prof. volokh has to say, although i am confident he would agree that it’s a facially invalid statute and clearly not content neutral.

    these small town despots are a bunch of pissants who need to get a life.

    1. Sooooooo, no First Amendment exemptions for spray-painting houses, but there is an exemption to the Fourth Amendment right to due process when a cop gets a pharmacist to break the law to collect evidence? Or is a it because it’s a “small town” (of 140k in a large metro area) instead of a big, rights-respecting city like Seattle?

      By the way, I hear it’s your wife’s birthday today.

      1. You could fill up pages with examples court-approved violations of the 4th Amendment.
        The Constitution means nothing these days.

      2. sloopy, what i did was ADJUDICATED 100% kosher.

        hippa is not constitutional law, and it is not illegal for me to ask a pharmacist to divulge prescription info.

        period.

        i am not the keeper of records, and hippa no more applied to me in that circumstance than it applies to a journalist questioning an ER doc about the bullet wounds received by a person they are treating.

        i got an attaboy from the prosecutor and there was NO suppression because what i did was not illegal.

        again, the pharmacist may have violated hippa (there may be an exception for inchoate and in progress crimes ; i don’t know nor do i care.

        the burden is not on the asker of questions. it is on the keeper of records, in this case the pharmacist.

        again, i got an attaboy both for that, and for my inventive use of a sequential photo lineup of pills for identification purposes.

        i did my job, damn well, as an investigator, which is to gather evidence.

        NO violation on my part, and again, if the pharmacist violated HIPPA, that’s his fucking bad, not mine. i do not have to specifically not ask questions if those questions could lead to a HIPPA violation.

        there is no such law restricting my acts thereof and trying to turn hippa into a 4th amendment issue is stupid, even for you, and your consistent ignorance of even basic constitutional law.

        1. “sloopy, what i did was ADJUDICATED 100% kosher.”

          While I can’t say much as to the legality of your actions, as IANAL, nor have I made much study the law, you must know that judges aren’t very trustworthy and rule according to their own biases more than honest application of the law.

        2. So far, what Cary has done has been adjudicated 100% kosher.

          Because fuck you, that’s why.

      3. Cut it out, man. Dunphy isn’t a troll, and 90% of what he says isn’t even related to cops. Your insistent stalking of him, trying to start fights where there isn’t one, is a bit immature. I’m as anti-cop as they come, and would like Dunphy to renounce his profession or work to subvert it from the inside. But that’s not going to happen, and he hardly seems like the kind of Pig who would plant evidence or brutalize someone.

        1. Wait, what the fuck r guys talking about? Did you bust someone for taking the wrong meds, Dunphy? If so I retract my criticism of Sloopy because that’s pretty low

          1. i busted somebody for selling and giving away C-II stimulants to high school kids.

            sloopy is butthurt because i asked a pharmacist if the kid had a prescription for same. he claims i broke the law (hippa).

            hippa did not apply to ME. it applied to the pharmacist. the pharmacist chose to divulge such info to me. might have been a violation on his part of hippa, but not mine. and it had nothing to do with constitutional violations as sloopy claims

            i got an attaboy from the prosecutor and NO appeal or suppression attempt by the defense attorney because i violated no statute. i did my job as an investigator.

            1. At some point in your professional career, you’ll learn that it’s HIPAA, and that according to many people I have talked to, including both care providers and attorneys, you were part of a criminal conspiracy the moment you knowingly asked someone to break the law. You then furthered your crimes by transporting the information on your person to a third party, the prosecutor. The fact that the defense was either inept or didn’t care doesn’t change the illegality of your actions.

              1. it’s not a crimina conspiracy. spare me. the case was adjudicated and i am as free to ask a pharmacist about a guy’s prescription history as a journalist is to ask an ER doc about a patient’s wound.

                i committed no crime. feel free to farm the case out to any attorney who will tell you there is nothing to prosecute.

                the defense found out the same thing the prosecutor found out. i did nothing wrong, neither legally nor morally.

              2. Just to play devil’s advocate here…

                We all know that many federal laws are very vague and are often interpreted very differently by different people. Is it possible here that your lawyers and his are honestly coming to opposite conclusions?

                1. Of course it’s possible that they’re coming to different conclusions. Of course, the lawyer (RC Dean) practices medical law and linked to applicable statutes, and the doctor on here (Groovus Maximus) linked to other applicable statutes.

                  Of course they could be at odds with a cop who neither linked to the case at hand or to statutes/rulings that support his assertion.

                  1. Of course they could be at odds with a cop who neither linked to the case at hand or to statutes/rulings that support his assertion.

                    He got an attaboy from the DA! What the hell else other kind of proof do you need?

              3. The fact that the defense was either inept or didn’t care

                Probably a public pretender. Their job is not to defend their clients. Their job is to get convictions in the form of plea bargains for the people who pay them.

            2. Legal and moral are two different things. Morally, you are a sack of shit, no matter how many attaboys the state gives you.

          2. Dunphy got a pharmacist to disclose a person’s medical records without securing a warrant so he could bust him for selling Adderral. He bragged quite a bit about not caring that the pharmacist was breaking the law and how he got an attaboy from the prosecutor in the case.

            He was quite pleased with himself.

            1. i am quite pleased because it was good police work.

              if the pharmacist had asked for a warrant, i would have gotten one. the pharmacist made a choice and there is NO law restricting me from asking him about a patient’s prescription history.

              considering this client of the pharmacy was diverting C-II stimulants to high school kids, the pharmacist thought it exigent enough to release the info w/o a warrant.

              the prosecutor and even the defense attorney thought i did the right thing. and i stand by my actions.

              1. if the pharmacist had asked for a warrant, i would have gotten one. the pharmacist made a choice and there is NO law restricting me from asking him about a patient’s prescription history.

                considering this client of the pharmacy was diverting C-II stimulants to high school kids, the pharmacist thought it exigent enough to release the info w/o a warrant.

                If the Fourth Amendment were real, you’d be sitting in a jail cell right now and that kid would be walking the streets.

                1. If the constitution as real, 85% of what we know as government would not exist.

                2. sloopy, the fourth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this case. If you give information to a third party, the third party is totally free to give that information to police. That’s not a search or seizure.

                  Now, HIPAA may forbid the pharm from doing what he did, but that’s not the fourth amendment.

                  1. sloopy, the fourth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this case. If you give information to a third party, the third party is totally free to give that information to police.

                    Tulpa, I’ll defer to the legal minds that weighed in on this. And yes, evidenciary procedures are subject to Fourth Amendment protections. The law, and the Fourth Amendment, says he needs to obtain a warrant to get this information from a health care provider. The health care provider, also, is required by law to keep medical records secret unless compelled by a court of law through the subpoena process.

                    That’s not a search or seizure.

                    Yes it is. The pharmacist is the custodian of the private medical information (papers and effects) of the patient. Those records are subject to Fourth Amendment protections, as they are specifically stated in HIPAA (I linked to the pertinent piece on the DHS website the other day). For a cop to “seize” the records, which Dunphy did , a warrant must be provided.

                    You can sit here and say it ain’t so but you’d be wrong. And you can also continue to ignore the multiple sources and case law examples that were provided to you last week.

                    1. Wow, so there was never a need for HIPAA to begin with, since the fourth amendment already covered it. Indeed, HIPAA would actually be unconstitutional since it contains several “national priority” exceptions which the fourth doesn’t.

                    2. Wow, so there was never a need for HIPAA to begin with, since the fourth amendment already covered it.

                      There are a lot of laws for which there is no need, but the government passes them because fuck you, that’s why.

                    3. And Dunphy didn’t seize shit. It was given to him voluntarily.

                    4. He seized it if the person whose records it was didn’t tell him he could take it.

                      If a cop took your property because a third party illegally gave it to them, would you likewise be fine with that?

                      And yes, the “national priority” exceptions to HIPAA are violations of the Fourth. It’s good that you’re finally coming around to seeing this from a libertarian perspective, even if you are doing it sarcastically.

                    5. That information isn’t his property.

                      Thought experiment: if the kid told his neighbor about all the meds and quantities thereof that he was obtaining, and the neighbor wrote it down, and Dunphy knocked on the neighbor’s door a week later, asked if there was anything weird about the kid, and the neighbor handed him the list of meds, would that be a fourth amendment violation?

                      If not, how does it suddenly become a paper and effect when it’s printed on the pharma computer rather than written on the neighbor’s notepad.

                    6. That information isn’t his property.

                      If I said it was, I misspoke. But, by statute, it is privileged information the provider is forbidden by law to disclose without the patient’s permission.

                      Thought experiment: if the kid told his neighbor about all the meds and quantities thereof that he was obtaining, and the neighbor wrote it down, and Dunphy knocked on the neighbor’s door a week later, asked if there was anything weird about the kid, and the neighbor handed him the list of meds, would that be a fourth amendment violation?

                      Totally different, as the neighbor isn’t required by law to keep that information private. Also, it’s hearsay evidence whereas the medical information provided by the pharmacist is privileged information under the applicable (HIPAA) laws. If this is your argument, you’re dumber than dirt.

                      If not, how does it suddenly become a paper and effect when it’s printed on the pharma computer rather than written on the neighbor’s notepad.

                      Because statute makes it so unless the patient has signed a disclosure saying the provider can release it without his consent or a warrant.

                    7. Totally different, as the neighbor isn’t required by law to keep that information private.

                      So an ancap is agreeing with the state’s determination of what is moral and what is immoral?

                      Huh.

                    8. I don’t understand what you’re saying with how fucked up the comment threading is. Help me out here.

              2. i am quite pleased because it was good police work.

                It’s a crime, you self-absorbed asshole.

                -jcr

        2. Um, he solicited evidence illegally (according to multiple legal sources on here and elsewhere) in a victimless crime case. He knew it was illegal for the pharmacist to divulge the information without a warrant or subpoena, so he involved himself in a conspiracy to commit a crime.

          And if you want to get a better feel for dunphy, I suggest you spend a few minutes and take him at his word.

          And I never really called him a troll. What I’ve called him is an enabler that regularly defends police abuse, breaks the law in pursuit of justice and is OK with cops breaking the law they are sworn to uphold unless they are specifically trained not to do so. He’s a pair of clown shoes.

          1. i did NOT solicit evidence illegally.

            the pharmacist may have violated HIPPA. i viiolated no law.

            i have enabled no law breaking cops and i am as fierce a critic of police misconduct as anybody.

            please cite what statute *i* broke.

            i broke no statute.

            i was no more restricted by HIPPA than a journalist asking about a patient’s injuries from an ER doc. the DOCTOR is limited by HIPPA. the journalist is not.

            and there are no sources HERE or elsewhere that can specifically say what law i broke. hippa does not apply to somebody asking a pharmacist questions about a patient. it has no jurisdiction over such a party.

            1. and there are no sources HERE or elsewhere that can specifically say what law i broke.

              Except for the sources both doctors and medical attorneys stated here over and over last week.

              1. Groovus and RC, assuming those are the people you’re referring to, are a (now foreign) medical record holder and an attorney for medical record holders, respectively. Their expertise on HIPAA is intended to guide the action of medical record holders, not outside investigators.

                I don’t recall RC ever claiming that Dunphy violated the law; he only said the pharmacist did.

                1. So the fact that Groovus recently left the US means his memory, as well as the links he posted, IRT to HIPAA are to be discounted?

                  I don’t recall RC ever claiming that Dunphy violated the law; he only said the pharmacist did.

                  Then you might want to fire up the ol’ search function, because he said over and over that dunphy participated in a criminal conspiracy.

                  1. RC has in the past had some strange legal opinions about matters outside his area of expertise that were later shown false. Not that it’s his fault; I don’t think anyone knows the law in its entirety.

                    1. I don’t think anyone knows the law in its entirety.

                      I don’t either, but I’m more likely to defer to a medical attorney on medical disclosure matters than a cop or math teacher.

                    2. Especially when it lines up with what you want to believe!

                    3. Or when it coincides with other medical professionals and attorneys’ opinions as well as the DHS’s own page on the matter.

                      I’m done discussing it with you. Good day.

        3. thanks. and i stand by my actions in the above case.

          i had a kid giving away and selling schedule II amphetamines to fellow school kids. i heard from the grapevine that he had a prescription for same, but i had no hard evidence.

          a natural step for an investigator is to go to a local pharmacy and try to confirm if the kid had access to the pills he was trying to sell. among other things, i thought it my duty to advise the pharmacist that pills he was dispensing were being diverted into the gullets of 14 yr old girls (he was mostly giving them away free to girls because he was trying to get some nookie. guys will do anything for pussy, apparently).

          a kid could have overdosed and.or suffered serious physical consequences from taqking a C-II stimulant, especially if they have a pre-existing heart condition or whatnot. it’s not fucking pez. it’s a C-ii stimulant.

          again, the pharmacist MAY have violated hippa by divulging that yes, the kid was getting a script for a specific C-II stimulant from him, but that is NOT my concern. if he ASKED for a warrant, i would have gotten one, but if he wanted to volunteer the info, i was under no legal or moral restriction in getting a warrant. that was firmly established during the case itself, and the prosecutor did ample review, and the defense attorney didn’t even CHALLENGE it because (as he told me), i did nothing illegal or wrong in any sense.

          1. a natural step for an investigator is to go to a local pharmacy and try to confirm if the kid had access to the pills he was trying to sell.

            No, a natural step for an investigator is to go to a judge, tell them your probable cause and obtain a warrant to examine or seize private medical records.

            i was under no legal or moral restriction in getting a warrant. that was firmly established during the case itself

            I call bullshit, as this contradicts your other statements saying it was never contested in court. Unless the prosecutor in the case told the judge how you obtained the evidence and asked him to rule on its admissibility, which would be the first time in the history of jurisprudence that that happened.

            Nice attempt at bullshitting us, shitbag.

            1. You’re done, sloopy. From the HHS page on HIPAA (under “permitted uses and disclosures”):

              Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.

              1. You ignorant fuck. That section (#5) means a covered entity (health care provider) can call a cop and give him information about the person if he believes a crime has been committed on hie premesis. And it only applies to information about the suspected crime and no more.

                It doesn’t mean a cop can ask him for information about someone’s medical records and get it pursuant to an investigation. A warrant is still required for that release of information.

                1. Bzzt. The pharmacist is a covered entity, otherwise HIPAA wouldn’t apply to them.

                  I don’t see anything there about the CE having to initiate the contact, either. And apparently this was evidence of a crime, otherwise why was it used in court?

                  1. What crime was committed in the pharmacy Tulpa?

                    1. Possession with intent to distribute.

                    2. Possession with intent to distribute.

                      And what would lead the CE to think that he had committed that crime? And if it’s because the cop said so, that’s more than a stretch.

              2. The kid was handing off the drugs on the pharmacy’s parking lot? If the dealing was off premises then section 5 does not apply.

                1. the possession occured on the premises.

          2. the pharmacist MAY have violated hippa

            YES, he violated it, and you did too. You often pretend to oppose crimes by cops. Are you going to turn yourself in for this?

            -jcr

            1. A random individual can’t violate HIPAAA. Only a record holder or service provider.

              1. Fucking conspiracies, how do they work?

                1. I’m not allowed to tell you.

                  1. I’m not allowed to tell you.

                    In the same way a mongoloid can’t tell you how a nuclear weapon works.

                    1. Oh Christ what a bunch of nonsense. If HIPAA was violated, it was violated by the pharmacist. Are you going to insist on putting Assange in jail because he ‘conspired’ to distribute his illegally leaked info? No of course not. This really is an increasingly bothersome obsession on sloopy’s part. Your quarrelsome nature endears to no one.

                    2. I’ll wear any criticism from you as a badge of honor. And take up the conspiracy comment with Groovus (a doctor) and RC Dean (a medical attorney). They were both quite vocal in their claim that dunphy involved himself in a criminal conspiracy.

                    3. You’ll wear any criticism you can’t answer as a badge of ‘honor’.

                    4. Yeah, sure. I never answered it. Why don’t you go back and look at the thread from last week on it.

                      Actually, why don’t you go eat a bottle of sleeping pills instead.

                    5. I’d prefer it if you wore my criticism as a scarf.

                    6. It sounds like you need the sleeping pills. Grouchy. And even then you are one angry person. You should do something about that.

                    7. I’m not angry. I just get pissed when I see state actors disregarding the Constitutional protections we’re supposed to enjoy in a free society.

    2. “these small town despots are a bunch of pissants who need to get a life.”

      That is pretty weak. How about an ass whipping? That goes double for the judges.

  22. Alt text runs afoul of internet zoning regulations.

  23. Crap: Boxing legend Muhammad Ali near death, says his brother

    1. Aw, crap. Man, that’s a guy that will be missed the world over. A true champion and a man of conviction and character. I’ll be hoping for a speedy recovery.

  24. “If we take your argument, though, aren’t we ? essentially saying that each house is a billboard for protest signs, and that you could just drive down the street, just every house having something painted that they wanted everybody to see, and nobody could do anything?” asked Judge Max Cogburn?. “The town’s totally powerless to stop it, based on size, color, anything else?”

    Yes. What part of the 1st Amendment don’t you fucking understand?!

    1. Damn, beat me to it! I was just about to write exactly the same thing.

  25. “What I don’t like about this guys defense is that it seemingly doesn’t have a problem with banning all speech equally, which would serve the town’s purposes of shutting down speech just as well.”

    there are all sorts of residential zoning restrictions that have passed constitutional muster that regulate, for instance the SIZE of signs or the construction thereof (like prohibiting flashing neon lights and stuff like that).

    the constitutionality of this crap was established in case law under Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. in 1926.

    the issue here is these are NOT content neutral restrictions. you can’t allow signs that are “art” and holiday decorations, but DISALLOW political signage. that is simply a 100% no brainer and a guaranteed case that will get overturned.

    1. there are all sorts of residential zoning restrictions that have passed constitutional muster that regulate, for instance the SIZE of signs or the construction thereof (like prohibiting flashing neon lights and stuff like that).

      What part of what he did includes a sign? The house met zoning laws when it was built and he is free to paint it whatever color scheme he chooses. Christmas decorations are not the same because they’re temporary adornments to the structure, whereas this is paint. Euclid vs Ambler only tangentially applies here, insomuch as the case has been manipulated to apply in many ways not at first intended or envisioned.

      1. That’s his point, Sloopy. He’s saying that the only allowable restrictions (so far) are on the physical properties of signs, not on their content.

        1. that’s a fair cop

          1. You’re a fair cop.

            1. In your twisted worldview, he probably is. You both support armed goons beating/murdering people for no justifiable reason.

              1. You tell yourself that. Remember to color within the lines.

                1. Ooh, you got me so bad!

                  1. I know right? I’m on fire tonight! Woo!

    2. Plessy v. Ferguson was established case law at one time too. It wasn’t constitutional and neither is Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.

      1. Plessy was actually the correct interpretation of the constitution. Brown was the legislating from the bench.

        1. That is correct, as much as I hate it.

          Article IV
          Section 2-3

          “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.11”

          1. It should also be noted that non slave property holders are not offered the same level of protection as slave holders.

          2. Plessy had nothing to do with Article IV. You seem to be thinking of Dred Scott.

  26. Cut it out, man. Dunphy isn’t a troll

    He’s a fucking scumbag who believes cops have an unlimited authority to kill civilians who do not bow down before them with sufficient alacrity.

    You can both eat shit and fuck off.

    1. oh spare me. my analysis of police use of deadly force is almost completely consistent with that adjudicated by courts.

      i have on numerous occasions called out cops for excessive force when they used it.

      but my analysis of deadly force, which i make with the knowledge gained AS A firearms and deadly force instructor, as somebody who has testified in death inquests, as somebody who has researched tons of case law, as somebody who has been involved in shootout(s) myself, — my analysis is in line with the courts.

      heck, it’s even consistent with balko who took shit in the BART case for agreeing with the manslaughter conviction (not murder) meted out by the courts because it was correct under the law.

      my belief as to cops limitation of use of deadly force is inline with CASE LAW e.g. tenn. v. garner and i am also a firm supporter of the right of “civilians” to use deadly force to defend themselves.

      if i believe cops have unlimited authority, then the courts believe the same too, because my analysis is very close to that turned out by courts in reviewing police deadly force.

      we rely on case law and process analysis, not hysterics about POLICE MURDERERS DERP DER DERP

      1. i have on numerous occasions called out cops for excessive force when they used it.

        I’m sure that you insisted that they be treated in the same way as a peasant who had committed the same act, including handcuffs, charges, a court appearance, fines, jail time, mandatory counseling, a criminal record, stuff like that, right?

        Right?

        .
        .
        .

        Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

        Don’t forget to tip the waitress.

        1. Dunphy has often said that cops who break the law should be prosecuted.

          1. Oh, well then I guess he’s one of the good ones.

            Of course, he also said a guy that came to his own front door at 1:30 am and answered it with a gun in his hand was a “fucking moron that had it coming” whan a cop his out of view of the door and smoked him when he answered.

            He deserves more than the amount of ridicule we give him, a lot more. And so do you, by the way, for the level of retardation you’ve recently brought to the comment threads. No offense meant.

          2. He also seems to think that by definition, the cops are incapable of breaking the law.

          3. Dunphy has often said that cops who break the law should be prosecuted.

            Dunphy also has a very plastic definition of what exactly constitutes “law-breaking” when it comes to actions by law enforcement officials.

      2. i have on numerous occasions called out cops for excessive force when they used it.

        Zero is a number.

      3. my analysis of police use of deadly force is almost completely consistent with that adjudicated by courts.

        Those would be the institutions that said it was OK to steal property to give it to anyone who would pay more tax on it, and gave a green light to locking people up for their race, right?

        The failure of the courts to punish violent crimes committed by members of your gang doesn’t mean they’re not crimes. It means the courts are part of the problem.

        -jcr

  27. Boxing legend Muhammad Ali near death, says his brother

    Shit.

    “No Viet Congs ever called me a nigger.”

    1. No, they call you mayding.

  28. Appeal to authority some more, shithead, I’m sure that will convince me eventually.

    the courts believe the same too, because my analysis is very close to that turned out by courts in reviewing police deadly force.

    It’s not like the cops routinely lie on the stand, or anything.

    1. I’ve never read a police report of anything I witnessed that was not a work of fiction loosely based on fact.

  29. I’m already sick of Phil Simms

    1. I’m listening to the game on the radio.

      Of course, the radio color commentary guy is Boomer Esiason.

      1. I wonder how far we are away from someone developing a Cosell/Jackson/Carey/Johnson computer program to do color commentary for every game of every sporting event till the end of man.

  30. I just stumbled upon some rugby tournament (NBC Sports). England vs Kenya. I might miss the derper bowl kickoff.

    Holy shit, those guys are ATHLETES. They make NFLers look like bloated corpses washed up on a beach.

    1. Was it the Dubai Sevens? Not a 7’s fan, really, but it’s a fun diversion.

      Six Nations started this weekend as well, but I couldn’t find that on TV.

      1. It’s on TV5MONDE.

  31. England looking verrrrrrry tough in the early going.

  32. Alicia Keys destroyed that anthem the way Chris Christie destroys a taco salad.

    1. I had to mute it before I shot my TV. Horrible.

    2. At least it wasn’t lip synched.

    3. I try to avoid the national anthem. I don’t see the point of singing the anthem before sporting events.

      1. My local am talk station was talking about ways to improve the halftime show. Some of the nationalism in the suggestions was downright scary.

        One guy wanted to see a re-enaction of the OBL takedown. Another wanted to see a missile attack from the stadium on a target ship on lake Pontchartrain. And yet another wanted to see a flyby of every aircraft in our arsenal with it concluding by having an Army team rappel down from choppers.

        They didn’t air my e-mailed suggestion of showing a live drone attack from the first person perspective in real time or to do a $10M giveaway.*

        *I suggested they ask for 11 volunteers in the stadium. They have 11 guns and each person grabs one. 10 have blanks and one has a live round in it. They all put the gun to their head and pull the trigger. The 10 that don’t splatter their brains on the field get $1M each.

        1. You’re sick.

          I propose having some sort of Pop Warner football game, with the two best teams in the country, on the field during halftime. Way more wholesome than indulging our society’s celebrity fetish yet again.

        2. One guy wanted to see a re-enaction of the OBL takedown. Another wanted to see a missile attack from the stadium on a target ship on lake Pontchartrain. And yet another wanted to see a flyby of every aircraft in our arsenal with it concluding by having an Army team rappel down from choppers.

          Scary nationalist those ideas may be, lets not deny they have great entertainment value-far more so than football, which is a shitty faggoty excuse for sport.

          OMG I GOT THE GREATEST IDEA EVER. What if drones were integrated into football?!?! Football wouldn’t have to suck! The guy’s got the ball, he’s breaking out and no one can stop him until BOOM! He’s stopped. There’s just a crater in the field. I am a genius.

  33. Did Phil Simms just say it was good that a receiver caught a ball?

  34. What am I watching? Some idiot just barely manages not to drop a easy catch, and he gets up and struts around?

    I hate the NFL.

  35. The Oz trailer looked interesting. Part of it looked like an homage to Super Mario World and part of it looked like a LOTR ripoff. I’ll probably see it though.

  36. How the hell is Fast & Furious up to 6?

    1. I’ve only read the first 3 books!

      1. I’m still coloring in only #2!

    2. How the hell is Fast & Furious up to 6?

      By making five movies already.

      1. There were a lot of unanswered questions in the 5th.

        1. Most important of which was “how much more money can we milk out of stupid people?”

          1. Probably a lot.

            Film Release Date Domestic Foreign Worldwide
            The Fast and the Furious June 22, 2001 $144,533,925 $62,750,000 $207,283,925
            2 Fast 2 Furious June 6, 2003 $127,154,901 $109,195,760 $236,350,661
            The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift June 16, 2006 $62,514,415 $95,953,877 $158,468,292
            Fast & Furious April 3, 2009 $155,064,265 $208,100,000 $363,164,265
            Fast Five April 29, 2011 $209,837,675 $416,300,000 $626,137,675

            1. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

              H. L. Mencken

              1. The increase isn’t as impressive when you measure global box office in gold ounces.

                2001 TF&TF; 69094.33
                2003 2F2F 67528.57
                2006 TF&TF;:TD 25559.35
                2009 F&F 40351.56
                2011 FF 40396.00

      2. I thought you were done talking to me.

        ST:ID looks awful.

          1. Awwww.

            You know you want to let me crash at your pad while I’m on the way to Sac.

            1. You’re more than welcome to. But where would you possibly fly into that would take you anywhere near our place on your way to Sacramento?

              1. Good point. Why the hell you have to be out in flyover country.

        1. ST:ID looks awful.

          Who would want to watch Star Trek: Intelligent Design anyway?

          1. Christian socialists?

    3. Which one was the ATF one?

  37. Gay themed commercials seem to be in this year.

    1. I’ve only liked the Doritos goat commercial so far.

  38. Even the Canadian Prime Minister is watching the Superbowl

    1. I thought you flappy-heads called it the Super Bouwl.

      1. Supre Bowl.

  39. “CBS: You made us the shiniest network turd.”

  40. That Gangnam craze is now officially over.

  41. What a horrible pass.

    Holy shit, the Ravens score here and this game is looking pretty tough for the Niners to win.

    1. Holy shit, Moss pulled up on that pass like a little pussy.

      1. pulled up … like a little pussy

        Ewww.

  42. Are we in Alex Smith time yet?

    1. If the Niners have to win this game, I hope it’s Alex Smith that leads them to victory.

    2. Has that ever happened before? A starting SB quarterback being benched for any reason other than injury? I remember the Pats replaced Tony Eason but that was because of injury.

      That would be one hell of a kick in the nuts.

    3. How about Alexis Smith time?

      1. Do you have a thing for dead Canadian actresses from the 40’s?

        1. I suppose 😉

  43. The fake failed

    1. What the fuck? You always take the points.

      1. WWPSS (What would Phil Simms Say)?

      2. Not when you’re 11 points up on your brother and his QB is a turnover machine.

        1. and his QB is a turnover machine.

          You mean the guy that’s had two turnovers in his last 5 games?

          1. Don’t confuse Tulpa with facts.

            This is getting ugly. I’m actually feeling kind of bad for the Niners, and I wanted them to lose.

          2. He threw one interception in this one already, and almost threw one at his own goal line.

            1. Almost throwing interceptions =/= a “turnover machine”, dingleberry.

  44. WOW. That’s keystone kops level defense.

    1. No, they would have just shot him as he went near his waistband at the line of scrimmage.

  45. Can the niners bench their whole D?

  46. Considering that the Ravens suck, how the heck is this happening?

  47. That surge in the western electrical grid is TVs being turned off all over the west coast.
    Harbaugh is out-coached (what penalties?), Kaepernick is shitting his pants and the D didn’t bother to get on the plane.

    1. It’s a 15 point deficit. Not insurmountable by any means.

      But they definitely need to turn things around.

      [/Simms-level analysis]

      1. “But they definitely need to turn things around.”

        Yeah, but can the D be flown in in time for the 2nd half?
        Reporters are currently at the airports; we’ll have updates as they happen!

  48. Wow, try not to get your dress dirty, son.

  49. I’m not watching but it sounds like my bitterness over the bipolar nature of the Patriots would only be dramatically increased.

  50. Halftime update: The game is at the half.

  51. That drop in water pressure is every toilet in America flushing at the same time.

    1. Not mine. I’m on a well.

      /offthegridFTW!

      1. You shit in your well?

        1. No, but you shit in our well every time you comment on here.

    2. As if there isn’t time to go during the 5,000 commercials that have aired so far….

  52. Was it the Dubai Sevens?

    I believe it was sevens, from Wellington, NZ.

    It has been a long time since I saw any rugby.

    Very impressive.

    1. It only gets interesting after someone finally grabs the ball out of the massive, squiming man-pile.

      1. I see you subscribe to the saying “It’s always funny until someone gets hurt… And then it’s hilarious!” You sick bastard,you.

    2. Sevens is too…gimmicky. Not enough of the full strategy and tactics on display. Way too short, as well, but that’s probably because the guys would die if they had to play 80 minutes like in standard Rugby Union.

      If you have DirecTV, spring-summer sees channel 490 bringing live Super Rugby (which is at odd hours for 2/3 of the games) and scattered internationals. Quite enjoyable.

        1. Nope. 490 is not. I think it comes with the UEFA channels (which I think are part of the sports package, though I’m not so sure).

  53. Well, that’s three more judges who should be disbarred for their dereliction of duty. The first amendment isn’t ambiguous, and these assholes have just violated William Bowden’s civil rights.

    -jcr

    1. And the claim that the city governments control the appearance of a city is particularly laughable.

      1. Zoning is an abomination.

  54. I wonder whether cops that go around enforcing unjustifiable shit of this sort ever feel guilt over the fact that their living comes largely from making slaves of their.

    1. neighbors.

    2. I wonder whether cops that go around enforcing unjustifiable shit of this sort ever feel guilt over the fact that their living comes largely from making slaves of their.

      If Dunphy is representative of LEOs, no.

  55. Beyonce allows the other member of Destiny’s Child out of their cages just for tonight.

    1. The kickoff!
      No, the D did not yet arrive!

      1. That one was all special teams

        1. You are correct; the ST defensive unit really isn’t ‘special’ this evening.
          It’s the ‘sub-average team’ defense.

          1. I’d say they’re Special. So special they need to ride a short bus back to the hotel after the game.

            1. This would be “special” sort of like the “special olympics”?

              1. Yes, I did mean retarded.

    1. TWITTER CRASHED

      1. So did the 9ers ST coach.

        1. So SF didn’t just fall into the ocean?

          1. Ya know, you hope the team had a good time in NOLA.

            1. I know the residents feel safer with a losing Kapernick walking the street than they would with a losing Ray Lewis.

    2. This is fucking embarrassing.

      1. You know else who lost so bad it was embarrassing?

        1. The 49ers when they played the Seahawks?

          1. I said “who else,” you stupid bastard.

            And the correct answer is “The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers.”

            1. I thought it was the Cardinals when they played the Seahawks.

              1. The way the Niners are playing, I bet the Cardinals would be giving the Ravens a better game.

          1. That’s a cheap shot. Besides, all Buckeyes know the Cooper years never existed.

        2. Notre Dame at their bowl game?

  56. The Lighting guys are 49er fans?

  57. Was anyone watching where Jim Harbaugh was when the lights went out?

    1. I’m guessing you could safely say he’s ‘blown a fuse’.

        1. Hey, that’s not bad!

    2. Johnny pulled the plug.

      “Oops! Just kidding!”

      1. I made that comment at a Super Bowl party and no one caught the reference there either.

  58. So is the NFL “evolving” to appease its nanny, busybody critics?

  59. Warty| 2.3.13 @ 2:40PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

    Modells win 42-9, because football always does what I want it to the least.

    FUCK ART MODELL AND FUCK RAY LEWIS AND FUCK ART MODELL
    reply to this

    I hate when I’m right about football. FUCK FOOTBALL.

    1. Careful there. The 9ers kicker could yet miss.

      1. Akers miss? Surely you jest.

    2. U MAD?

    3. It’s people like you who keep great owners out of the Hall of Fame.

  60. I’m almost positive Shannon Sharpe is using English words, but I don’t know what he’s saying.

    1. It is hard with the ambient noise. He’s only comprehensible in the studio.

  61. Sorry, but I’ve got to post a shreek comment from upthread:

    Palin’s Buttplug| 2.3.13 @ 8:52PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

    Sorry – wingnuts, birthers, skeeters.

    McClatchy reported Obama shot skeet back in 2010.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201…..n-all.html

    FTA (emphasis mine): Obama told the TCU team that he, too, practiced shooting with a rifle. “He said he practiced with the Secret Service,” said Riford, who graduated from TCU in May and now works in Fort Worth.

    1. Obama himself qualifies as a reliable source, I guess.*

      *I addressed the “skeet rifle” upthread.

  62. The ghost of Don Meredith has apparently decided to take control of the situation.

    Now I’m watching NLL lacrosse.

    1. “The ghost of Don Meredith has apparently decided to take control of the situation.”

      That’s GOOD!

  63. John Harbaugh must have dropped 20 F-bombs on that dude in the suit already.

    1. anyone blaming BOOOOOOOSH yet?

      1. Paging shreek!

      2. Everybody knows that once the power goes out in a large building in NO, people start eating each other.

    2. Yeah, that was fun to watch. He is fucking pissed.

      Some heads are going to roll in the management structure of the Superdome.

      1. “Some heads are going to roll in the management structure of the Superdome.”

        Forget it. No MANAGEMENT is going to suffer; shit rolls downhill.

  64. Goodness! John pulls a Jim on the sidelines!

  65. The power outage must be the 49ners’ strategy. They hope the Ravens will just go home.

  66. That’s it, I’m switching to the Puppy Bowl.

    1. I know that’s what you’ve been watching all along!

  67. I’m surprised CBS didn’t go to a commercial break.

  68. Does Shannon Sharpe pay a royalty to Bill Cosby every time he does a public appearance?

  69. I’m glad somebody got that.

  70. It took them 34 minutes to call THAT play?

  71. Miguel Bloombito
    ?@ElBloombito
    Cuanto manyo ?FL officialos esta take to que screwo en un lighto bulbo?

  72. I guess New Orleans will be getting a new stadium.

  73. Nice to see the pass interference rules don’t apply to the Ravens on either side of the ball.

  74. So when is the Mayors Against Illegal Guns ad gonna air?

    1. Probably at the end of the game. The NFL doesn’t want to piss off its fans by having a few million of them throw bricks through their TV’s until the game is all but in the books.

      1. Surely the NFL wants to boost the economy when all those angry fans have to buy new T.V.s?

        1. Maybe, but I doubt the people with commercials airing right after MAIG’s are gonna be too pleased about the money they plunked down.

    2. Well, they are known for taking advantage of slaughters.

  75. Jesus, finally. But they are going to have to do that again real soon if they want to have a chance.

    1. And they did. OK, now we have a football game.

      1. John Harbaugh might go Ray Lewis on the Superdome staff after this game if this trend continues.

        And by “go Ray Lewis,” I mean he’ll kill them and dispose of his clothes.

        1. Well, it is New Orleans. Maybe he’ll get some beads.

        2. At least he won’t go Ben Roethlisberger on them…

          1. Maybe he could go Ray-Ben Roethlewisberger and rape their bodies after stabbing them.

        3. or “Plaxico Burress” on them

        4. Why would he bother? He can just have Ray Lewis do it for him. After all, Ray has the experience.

          John was right to be pissed.

          1. Sorry, but if your team can’t play after a power outage they aren’t worthy of being a champion.

            1. Their offense was off the field for 90 minutes. That’s like an eternity for a team’s timing and momentum.

              1. Momentum is an illusion invented by sportscasters to have something to talk about.

                1. Having played sports at a relatively high level (D-1 college), I can safely say that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  1. Whatever, dude.

                    Now the Ravens are driving. Oh….looks like they have the momentum now! Wow!

                    What good is having the momentum when you lose it as soon as the other team starts playing well? It’s almost as if it doesn’t actually exist.

                2. Momentum is an illusion invented by sportscasters to have something to talk about.
                  Agreed. “Momentum” is wishing.

              2. Champions win, losers make excuses.

                1. Losers make excuses, winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

                    1. THAT IS WHY MINE WAS NOT IN QUOTATION MARKS AND ATTRIBUTED

                    2. STOP FIGHTING!

                    3. sorry. watching Canadian ads during the superbowl does something to me.

                    4. Has Kraft Dinner done anything cool this year for the big game?

                    5. btw, Canadian ads aren’t “new” for the Superbowl.

                    6. You guys are like the dysfunctional family I never wanted.

  76. I think the Mayors Against Legal Guns ad is a D C area local commercial.

    For the “opinion leaders”.

    1. So, strictly air in the echo chamber?

    2. That’s stupid. Self-defense with a gun is already illegal in DC.

  77. I like how they’re praising the punter for making a good tackle.

    If he’d made a good punt he wouldn’t have to have made the tackle.

    1. Oh, come now. Surely the coverage could be to blame.

  78. Holy shit. This game just got interesting (compliments of Ted Ginn, Jr). Let’s see if Flacco can keep from fucking it up.

  79. Game. On.

  80. Wow. John H. has to be strangling electricians on the sideline.

  81. Simms: I don’t think the outage affected the Ravens.

    No, Phil. They’re playing exactly the same as they were before their offense was off the field for an hour and a half.

    1. Phil Simms is getting dumber as the game goes on.

    2. OH SHIT

    3. So how do you explain the defense sucking?

      1. Two short fields. They scored 10 of those points by gaining 25 yards (counting the bogus penalty).

  82. By Tulpy’s definition, Ray Rice is a “turnover machine”

    1. I wear your criticism as an adult diaper.

  83. Holy fuck. Game may be over now, but not the eay any of us expected an hour or so ago.

  84. Ricey McFumbles, what a surprise.

  85. Akers misses? What a surprise.

  86. And the academy award goes to … David Akers.

    1. Prolly too old for most of you.
      At one time, the NFL instituted a penalty for ‘bad acting’ by a kicker.
      AFAIK, Wershing (yep, a 9er) was the only one to ever be called on it.

      1. Isn’t that stiill covered by unsportsmanlike conduct?

  87. Is Akers gonna try out for a EPL squad after that dive?

    And somehow the CBS talking heads tow the NFL lion.

  88. Can you say, “Stupid penalty?”

  89. The 49ers should have the lights go out in all their games from now on.

  90. OK, so far the Niners are taking advantage of a very long power outage and all of the momentum going the other way, and a bogus second chance FG for their bum of a kicker to get the game inside of a TD.

    I now want the Ravens to win strictly on principle because this is total bullshit.

    1. The Ravens have been getting away with OPI and DPI all game long (and all playoffs long). Fuck them.

      1. And now Boldin gets away with a blatant facemask.

        1. Do you understand even the most basic rules of professional football?

          1. Pot calling the toilet black.

            1. Did you just refer to yourself as a toilet? I mean, we all know you’re full of shit, but the honesty is still refreshing.

              1. The toilet isn’t black, dumbass. Way to totally miss the point.

                1. Yeah and the toilet is also full of shit. Dumbfuck.

                  1. You can always use reasonable and then you don’t have to read his inane quarter-assed imitation of Socrates.

                  2. Only because people give it shit. And then it makes the shit go away.

    2. At this point I just want it to be as insane as possible, and I really don’t care who wins. I WANT CHAOS AND THE UNEXPECTED

      1. Did you hear that? The Ravens “went for the unexpected play”!

  91. Nope. That wasn’t leading with the helmet and a personal foul on the kickoff. Not at all.

    1. He wasn’t a defenseless player…

      1. He doesn’t have to be, dumbass.

        1. For that rule, yes you do. It wasn’t helmet to helmet.

  92. Leon Sandcastle. I lolled.

  93. “the sign was a safety hazard for passing motorists”

    Such a load of shit. Everything, including official road signs, are a distraction for dumbasses.

  94. What the fuck is this “God made a farmer” shit?!?

    1. God needed someone to whine for special government assistance and price supports; so God made a farmer.

      1. And I guess Paul Harvey then proceeded to blow the farmer.

        1. STFU. Paul Harvey was the man.

          1. And I guess Tulpa then proceeded to blow Paul Harvey.

            1. By the time I was born I doubt he could keep it up long enough.

        2. Paul Harvey is teh awesome.

          I imagine that someone who has ADHD takes a bunch pot.

      2. You mean ADM?

        I guess there’s no room for farmers in an-cap society….

    2. Dodge.

  95. FARMERS ARE TEH AWESOMES GIVE EMS UR MUNNY

    1. Come on, now we all have an extra special softness of heart for sloopy and Banjos.

      1. God needed someone to follow a cop around the Internet and post stories of police abuse, so he made a farmer.

        1. I can’t wait for the car commercial dedicated to you.

          Oh wait, they air them every time they show someone doing what a cop, politician or government bureaucrat tells them to do. Brought to you by the Chevy Volt.

      2. Shit, you don’t need to feel sorry for me. I wasn’t dumb enough to buy a Dodge.

        1. I would figure you for an IH Scout man myself.

          1. Shit, I wish. I currently have a pre-bailout Chevy 1500, a 46 Willys wagon and a 50 GMC 2 1/2 ton flatbed.

            1. The Willy’s is in disrepair bu the GMC runs. It just needs to be cleaned and have the batteries charged.

            2. Sweet. I always liked the Scouts. The Willy’s must be fun.

              1. Myaybe one day I’ll find out, but I’ve been told it’ll cost at least $20k to get it back to really nice shape.

  96. Paul Harvey back from the dead.

  97. Also, fuck zoning laws. Everything from noise to rendering regulations, fuck you.

  98. That Dodge commercial was odd. I couldn’t tell if they were selling trucks or Case tractors. Odd.

  99. Oh, wait, that was a pickup truck ad.

    WTF?

    1. They had to put something that ran reliably in the commercial. I guess that explains the Case tractors getting as much air time as the Dodge trucks.

    2. Farmers are awesome, and they drive awesome trucks. Dodge trucks, that is.

      I think that’s what they were getting at.

    1. I guess that makes up for two interceptions a little.

      1. Kaeper had to do something!

  100. If only there would have been a chance for the Poe’s to get 3 more points at some point.

  101. I’m thinking you could avoid the “where babies come from” questions a lot more easily by letting your kids watch animals fucking.

    1. That’s sort of out of nowhere. Possibly true, but very out of nowhere.

      1. Tulpa’s just trying to sucker us into explaining the facts of life to him. Don’t fall for it.

  102. It’s all on Akers now. Oh God.

    1. Don’t worry, Josh, I’m sure he’ll get two chances again.

  103. Work that clock!
    Work that clock!

  104. Don’t they have an offsides rule in the NFL anymore?

    1. only when 2 or more players go offside.

  105. Flag!
    Sorry, 9ers. Pretty good, but how many mistakes do you think you can get away with?
    Jim’s a ‘players coach’; he needs to be a winning coach.

  106. NY Post solicits blackout headlines at #PostFrontPage.

  107. Uh-oh. A FG isn’t gonna be enough to win this game. The Niners will win by 3.

  108. Jesus Christ! What does it take to get a holding penalty?

    1. Your mom?

      The Niners need to waste some time here. Getting a TD is great, but there’s too much time left.

      1. My mom doesn’t even understand blocking techniques, so you may be right.

        The Niners could score on the next play and they’ll still win.

        BTW, that Oscar-worthy performance by Akers is starting to look really important. These officials are every bit as bad as the replacement refs were.

        1. Not sure about that. At least these officials make their bad calls quickly.

        2. So you’re admitting that Golden Tate’s catch was totally legitimate against the Packers.

          1. OK, that was one bad call.

            Seriously this game has been poorly officiated. I doubt it was malicious, but it was poorly called.

  109. Kaepernick looks like a bitch, tiptoeing out of bounds before he can get tackled.

  110. The 49ers actually look like they want to win this game.

    1. Haha. You sound like Phil Simms.

  111. And the Ravens just lost.

  112. “Yards since the power outage” is now an official stat.

  113. Yeah, Simms has a good point for once. Why didn’t BAL take a timeout.

  114. Who the fuck are those clowns?

    1. Better call Saul!

  115. You’d think the Ravens D runs on electricity from how bad they’ve been doing since the blackout.

  116. I know Warty has me on filter, but I really wonder whether he hates LeBron as much as Art Modell.

  117. What does it take to get a holding penalty?

    Two or more guys at the same time; just like offsides.

  118. LOL. Are you kidding me.

    1. Boom goes the dynamite.

  119. Oh, what the fuck? I want to see who signaled a TO. I just watched the replay twice and the whistle blew 2 seconds after the play clock was at zero.

  120. What was that you were saying about leading with the helmet, sloopy?

  121. You sound like Phil Simms.

    The classic cliches never go out of style.

  122. HAAHAHA FAPPERNICK

  123. Harbaugh just won the superbowl with that play.

    1. Jack Harbaugh?

      1. Cooper.

  124. 9ers were out-coached. Jim needs to hang his head.

    1. You mean yelling and waving your arms isn’t a good coaching style?

  125. And the missed holding call makes up for all the breaks the Niners got.

    1. The Ravens DBs have been holding/interfering with impunity for the past four weeks. Why would anyone expect that to change.

      1. I know they blew that call but the Niners got 3 free points on the Akers dive and got a break (that is coming back to haunt them) on that time out a few minutes ago.

        1. They blew a bunch of other calls too. Like the helmet to helmet on that incomplete pass on 3rd down, and several DPI calls plus an OPI call from earlier.

  126. How the fuck is that not holding, Simms? You are worthless.

    1. You are worthress, Phirr Simms!

  127. What a bad non-call.

  128. “The more angles I see, the more confused I get” – Phil Simms

    1. Simms also said he did his best work while the booth was blacked out, I fully agree with that statement.

  129. Phil Simms is at a loss for words to put lipstick on that pig of a non-call. But that doesn’t stop him.

  130. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  131. And the Ravens are still holding on the punt. Come on!

    1. And? It wouldn’t have mattered. As a matter of fact, they all should have held a lot more than that to let the clock run out.

      1. At the very least the officials should have called it. Then they’d have to FK from the 10 instead of the 20.

  132. Is Ray Lewis weepy yet?

    1. God wanted the Ravens to win, dude. Ray says so.

      1. In spite of all the odd turn of events, he wouldn’t change a thing that happened in this game because it’s what turned him into the man he is at this moment.

  133. #84 had one of the 9ers in a bear hug while the punter was running around.

    1. OK, and with the safety, it wouldn’t have mattered if they threw the flag. They could take the penalty and back them up 10 yards with 4 seconds left or taken the play.

      1. Nope. Holding in the end zone is an automatic safety + 10 yard penalty on the free kick.

        1. Really? I’d like a citation on that. I always assumed holding in the end zone was an automatic safety but the kick was still from the 20.

          1. Hmm, I thought that was the case but I’m not finding any info either way.

            That’s bullshit if they don’t. In that case, if you know there’s going to be a safety you’d be daft not to try to hold someone, hoping it wouldn’t get called.

  134. Anybody think Akers can make an 80 yard field goal on a free kick?

  135. Somewhere, Warty is killing something.

    1. I find myself caring surprisingly little. I remember punching holes in a bunch of stuff 12 years ago, but I’m apparently much more resigned now to football being a piece of shit faggot worthless stupid sport from hell than I was then. I didn’t even bother to watch any of this one until I saw that the 9ers had come back.

      1. Maybe you could punch a few holes in Ray Lewis’ sense of self-importance.

        1. How could I? Jesus Himself protects him. Ray is a holy man, dude.

      2. What is a faggot sport? Like hide the salami?

  136. And the deserving team wins. Good.

    1. Well, to all you kids out there, all you have to do is hold and interfere with passes enough and you too can win the Super Bowl.

      1. You should keep this up all the time, Tulpa. Butthurtedness suits you.

        1. Just because your wife had a pet name for me before she had one for me doesn’t mean you have to be bitchy about it.

          1. me = you

            1. the second “me” = “you”

              1. Must be hard to type with Fappernick’s dick in your mouth.

  137. What a total travesty.

    1. Suck Fappernick’s dick, bitch!

  138. Miguel Bloombito ?@ElBloombito
    Quoth el Rave?o: Yo just que wo? el Super de Bowlo!

  139. Someone won’t be going home to a happy housemate
    http://img.bleacherreport.net/…..h=300&q=75

  140. Looks like that dog on Jay Leno correctly predicted who would win.

    1. Too bad that german octopus died

      1. I think we all died a little after this game.

  141. It’s a shame both teams couldn’t lose.

    1. I find myself in total agreement with this statement.

  142. Yay Ravens.

  143. ” essentially saying that each house is a billboard for protest signs, and that you could just drive down the street, just every house having something painted that they wanted everybody to see, and nobody could do anything”

    Damn right, motherfucker. It’s called freedom of speech, and your job is to uphold it, not to invent ways for the government to evade the first amendment.

    -jcr

  144. I don’t think there was a single holding penalty called on either team the whole game. Let ’em play, i guess

    1. Let em cheat, you mean…

      1. Yeah I can see how people are pissed. it probably should have been a flag. Most of the time it is. But not in that game.

      2. U MAD?

        You and Warty should be mad together.

        1. They are, they just can’t confess their love properly. Plus they’re both using assumed identities, so neither knows the other one is his enemy.

  145. Well, at least the coin toss came up heads. So I get a free Papa Johns pizza.

    1. Wow, what a crybaby…

      1. This is almost as bad as Romney losing.

        1. Ok now you’re just screwing with us.

  146. Jesus, Lewis…

    1. God specifically wanted him to win, dude, because he is “the” champ.

      Maybe getting away with murder has inflated Ray’s ego a little.

      1. As an atheist I still harbor a secret hope there is a god and people like Ray Lewis die and god says, “Fuck you, idiot. I gave you all of a universe and a brain with critical thinking skills for reasoning, and you ignored it all for bullshit that made you feel better. Get the fuck away from me.”

  147. I don’t care anymore. I’m going to watch todays Top Gear.

  148. Protecting Our Borders!

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/…..–nfl.html

    1. “his dreams of going to the big game went up in smoke

      That never gets old.

  149. I don’t think people should be using Ray Lewis to prove their theology either way.

    1. Neither should Ray Lewis

  150. SLD applies but I thought the Dodge farmer ad was one of the best ad I’ve seen. The cinematography was fantastic.

  151. Look! The refs just blew another call!

  152. Uh, this guy who lives in SF says:
    One team was coached better than the other; penalties, turn-overs, like that.
    The better team won, regardless of whatever idiot god-talks. Jim ain’t there yet.

  153. Fuck you, that’s why!

  154. Up late and saw this article; I live maybe 15 minutes away from Cary, on the “free” side of it. If any of you people knew the lot that liked to live in Cary, you’d understand just how much I hate Cary and all of its inhabitants. It’s quite literally almost as bad as New York.

    Put it this way: the zoning is set up so that you absolutely -must- be caught in an hour of traffic to travel 10 miles if you happen to be travelling at pretty much any convenient time of day. That cop that was stopped and got “honked at” (if that ever even really happened) was probably waiting at one of Cary’s infamous 2 mile long queue’d stop lights.

    There is no joke here. The traffic at lights anywhere near rush hour (morning or night) can -easily- exceed a 2 mile backup.

  155. This thread encapsulates why there are no female libertarians.

    1. Too focused on sports.

  156. Im sorry but that is jsut messed up man, I mean like totally!

    http://www.UGotAnon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.