I agree that there are other laws that cover the driver. And I agree with your assessment of the check writer.
But the person in the express line with more than 10 items is clearly in violation of the rules posted re: the line. Since he is both in violation of the posted social contract, and is hindering my ability to use the line properly, isn’t he breaching the peace?
And what about the screaming baby? Seems to me to clearly be a violation.
So a scathing post in the Pit would be ok. How about a PM to her, using the boards system, which contained such language?
I’m not sure why you hate liberals, their opinions just differ from yours. But I really do like your “alternate definition” ‘(which is a legal term for “being an asshole”)’. Somehow, it fits the subject of the discussion.
“Disturbing the peace” is quite litterally a law to stop people from acting like assholes. It’s not to stop all occurances of natural events that might annoy you (babies crying, people in the checkout line with more than 10 items, etc).
Sending threatening emails is roughly equivalent to harassing or crank phone calls, which in many states is also a misdemeanor.
Because they hate America and trying to ruin it with their Liberalocity (or so I’ve been led to believe)? I don’t hate anyone really. I was just making hyperbole.
Soooo…just ignoring my post, then?
Someone taking the last three pineapples when the store says “limit two per customer” and you really wanted some tropical delights isn’t a crime either. Violating store policies generally means that the store ought to take action, not a cop. But in any case, the guy with 11 or 20 items isn’t creating a ruckus or acting offensively, he simply isn’t obeying a store policy.
A baby obviously doesn’t have the mens rea to commit a crime. If parents bring a screaming baby to the opera, and refuse to leave when ushers ask them to, then I could see them being cited for breaching the peace.
Good enough. Hmmmm Liberocity’s roaming gnome. 
If you really need me to address the issue of whether I should have disclosed the statute, relevant caselaw, and saliant points of the parties’ briefs to the state supreme court before asking the question, I will. But in my view, that entire question is a substantial hijack from the topic, and my only regret is giving in to the temptation to toss off a four-word throwaway in post 116. I will happily withdraw post 116 and stipulate for the limited purpose of moving the discussion along that the OP could have been asked differently and more effectively.
No, that’s simply a subset of my question. Obviously if the e-mails are protected speech, we can resolve the more general question of whether they may subject the sender to criminal sanctions. But even if we decided that there is no constitutional protection, perhaps we might conclude that it’s unwise to criminalize e-mails similar to this, where their only offense is harrassment.
Is your question “can e-mails disturb the peace?”, or isn’t it?
I think all Bricker was doing was laying out the facts of the case and seeing how people react to it. Do you have a right to contact your elected officials–even if they have previously, before being elected, asked you to refrain from contacting them? What if you contact them in a non-harassing manner? What if you send an email? A nasty email? Can a nasty email be harassing? After all, it’s pretty easy to ignore them (you can even set up a filter to automate the ignoring). Should it be possible to be sent to jail for sending a nasty email to someone you have had bad blood in the past and who is now your representative in the state legislature?
I think these are all copacetic questions to ask, I don’t think Bricks deserves all this suspicion.
Again, the better term is harassment and not “breach of peace”. And, as I already said, a post to a message board can fit the definition of harassment, but the fact it is a public forum and the recipient having agreed to take place in the public forum, the argument that the alleged “harassment” should be protected is much stronger than in a private email or if done on the phone.
Now, I’m sure you have a hundreds of potential situations you could raise where the balancing between mere annoyance/harassment or free speech/illegal harassment can crop up, but I have neither the time, nor the inclination to deal with every imagined scenario you can create. The simple fact is that harassment has been made illegal in certain states, and if you need to know whether something constitutes illegal harassment or simply free speech, I would suggest you check with your state’s statute.
Thanks to you, Ravenman, and everyone else who has taken some time to answer my questions. I very much appreciate it.
I actually think I understand what constitutes harrassment. And I’m really not asking about that. I’m concerned with annoying. The Nevada statute, and many of the others shown here, specifically say that anything done with the deliberate intent, or resulting in, annoyance of even a single person is a crime. Well, the guy in the express line with 10 items might not be a breach, but if he sees me waiting and laughs and sticks his tongue out at me, that would annoy me. And frankly, I think it’s ridiculous that that could be considered a criminal act.
My intent wasn’t to be a jerkish and present a laundry list to be evaluated. Dude, my time is more valuable than that.
I just wasn’t articulating very well yesterday. My apologies.
I’m not a lawyer; I’m a snowboarder. And I know that often, legally, words have slightly different ascribed meanings than we find in everyday use. So I guess what I’m seeking is to hear a definition of “annoy” that doesn’t mean simply
Because that is such a low threshold to cross, and I’m having trouble understanding why we (society) thinks it’s a good idea to have it there, if indeed we do.
Now if what you’re saying, Hamlet is that “annoy” and “harrass” are legally the same, well, then I have a hard time seeing it the same way I do now and I would likely agree with the intent and the application of the law. So, is that what you’re saying?
Thanks again to everyone who has taken some time to address my questions.
From one of Drahota’s emails:
Drahota is now being defended, in part, by the ACLU.
Damn, that’s irony.
First, it’s Nebraska. Second, that’s not what it says. Here it is again: “Any person who shall intentionally disturb the peace and quiet of any person, family, or neighborhood commits the offense of disturbing the peace.” The definition clearly doesn’t include “or resulting it”, meaning accidentally disturbing someone’s peace isn’t covered.
We tend to agree on that. The statute, as written, is very broad and could, if you really wanted to press it, be used to charge some conduct I wouldn’t consider as harassment.
I think the Nebraska statute is poorly written and could easily encompass perfectly legal assholish behavior. That’s why I said I thought there was a legislative solution, were they should criminalize harassment, but not being an asshole.
I’m saying annoy certainly can be harassment. But not all annoyance is harassment. In the part of annoyance that I think constitutes harassment, I have no problem with criminal charges. If it is harassment, charge it.
In a vast majority of cases of harassment I’ve seen, it’s a couple that has broken up and one calls at 3:00 a.m., emails non-threatening, but still disgusting emails, and/or leaves little notes on cars, etc. Stuff that doesn’t rise to the level of stalking, but still is harassment.
As I mentioned (well, as I quoted Justice O’Connor) above to Snowboarder Bo, every court will take the criminal statute “as though it read precisely as the highest court of the State has interpreted it.” Thus, you mustn’t think that the text of the statute is conclusive, it merely sets the outer bounds of breach of the peace in Nebraska. Any limiting construction that the Nebraska Supreme Court has placed on the statute are part and parcel of Nebraska law. This is counterintuitive, to be sure, since it means, contrary to what most lay people might expect, you cannot get a full and final account of the law from reading the text of the statute, you must also know the jurisprudence that has been emitted from the state courts on the topic.
In CT, they always seem to tack on a charge of “Breech of Peace” whenever possible. Cops here also write you a ticket any time you have an accident. Seems like BS to me.
Answer: not in Nebraska.
Poor writing there. “In a face to face confrontation, this couldn’t have happened, because they aren’t face to face.”
Where’d you access that? It’s not on Westlaw yet.
Cripes, if they ever enforce that law we will have a lot fewer Dopers from Nebraska.
Regards,
Shodan
Sounds like Hedly Lamar’s recruiting pitch.