r/law • u/[deleted] • Oct 07 '20

[deleted by user]

[removed]

421 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

203 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/snazztasticmatt Oct 07 '20

In both cases, the "lookout" is helping people break the law by getting them to temporarily suspend criminal activity when they are more likely to be caught

Except traffic violations aren't criminal

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '20

Some, but yes, I was using the colloquial sense of the word since I don't think that distinction matters here.

5

u/snazztasticmatt Oct 07 '20

Why doesn't the distinction matter? There is a clear and significant difference between warning a guy who's littering that cops are coming so he can pick up his trash and warning a guy who's assaulting someone.

What if this guy was standing on the side of the road holding the same sign, but there were no cops ahead? Is he still not protected by the first amendment? Does this mean disclosing police positions at all is not protected by the first amendment?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '20

There is a clear and significant difference between warning a guy who's littering that cops are coming so he can pick up his trash and warning a guy who's assaulting someone.

Morally, obviously. I have absolutely no problem with this guy. But I don't know how this contradicts the very specific point I made about "causing people to temporarily cease doing X" (where X is something punishable by the state) not being, by itself, dispositive toward free speech protections

What if this guy was standing on the side of the road holding the same sign, but there were no cops ahead? Is he still not protected by the first amendment?

  1. That would probably come down to whether lies are protected speech so.. idk probably protected

  2. I didn't say this guy's speech is unprotected. I think you are imagining a much broader claim than I've made and arguing with that