Judge: Barking not protected speech

[n2doc]

MASON, Ohio, July 24 (UPI) -- A judge has ruled that barking and hissing are not protected by the First Amendment.

Mason, Ohio, Judge Andrew Batsche ruled Friday that when Ryan Stephens barked and hissed at a police dog in April, he was not protected by a constitutional right, The Cincinnati Inquirer reported.

Stephens was petitioning for the dismissal of a charge that he had abused a police dog, claiming the law violates free speech and is too vague.

Jim Hardin, Stephens' lawyer, argued that his client had a First Amendment right to bark at the dog, making reference to an Athens, Ohio, case in which a defendant had similar charges dropped.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/07/24/Judge-Barking-not-protected-speech/UPI-71091311566235/

[slackmaster]

1. Kitteh disagrees

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Barking and hissing are abuse?!

Barking mad is what this is.

[CBGLuthier]

3. No inherent right to be silly? Not a nation I wish to live in.

What a tight ass the cop who charged him must be.

[MattBaggins]

4. HWSR (how would scalia rule)

Well since this is about cops he would clearly rule in favor of the officer unless the defendant had been throwing cash around as he barked; in which case it would then be mega super double free speech.


Fuck you Scalia. Even though you had nothing to do with this, fuck you anyway.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Dude barked and hissed at a police dog?

He's lucky he didn't get bit in half.

[CJCRANE]

6. Technically that's correct. Barking isn't speech

at all. Nor is hissing.

[arbusto_baboso]

7. I'm sure if the dog had enough money or corporate backing, its barking would be protected.

You can bet on that.

[Angry Dragon]

8. The judge is so wrong

That person was just talking in native dog language and they are not responsible if the judge does not understand dog.........

Is the judge then saying a that a disabled person that can only make sounds is not communicating??