Two things to start. I am not on Facebook and have no account but I do get anonymous tips from people sometimes who ARE on Facebook and send me screen snaps from stuff. I just refuse to join Facebook to interact myself. (Updated to show that the police officers involved were with the City of Glen Rose and not the Somervell County Sheriff’s Dept)
Joe Boles is really an officious, odious, self-important person who must view himself as the BusyBody for every private citizen that lives in the City of Glen Rose. Wrote about his stalking behaviour that involved me recently. Kind of makes me think of the one meeting I went to fairly recently that was stultingly boring where the City Council went through a whole bunch of ordinances and made me feel like I was at an HOA meeting. (Note to government: HOAS are private corporations)
What I was sent was this post screenshot.

To start with, this is hugely amazing to me. Here is this guy who has taken it upon himself, as Mayor, (and oh, he wants YOU to know he is mayor, eh?) to apparently patrol the streets, stop cars, decide for himself whether the way a private citizen decorates his or her car is appropriate according to HIS standards, and try to appropriate the duties of the police. This is instead of his privately going to the sheriff’s department or City of Glen Rose police to ask about what he perceived to be an offensive or obscene bumper sticker, but oh, no, he needed for his own ego to throw his weight around. Who cannot laugh at this little man who exercises the “Do You Know Who I Am” principle.
Also, she clearly did not know who he was and did not even have to open the door to this guy, who might have been pretending to be *the mayor*. As Sheriff West told me about the instance that happened with me, the thing to do is to call 911.
So many questions. What made him think he had the right to tell this person to remove her bumper sticker? The car was almost certainly sitting on this lady’s private property but even if was on the public street, so what? What made this blowhard think he could tell her he would issue her a citation? Based on WHAT? Is that written in the job responsibilities of the mayor that he can run around and issues citations willie nillie? Does he do this at night too? Maybe he has a searchlight on his car so he can seek out people who are offending him.
Apparently the sheriff’s office (I assume it was THE sheriff’s office and not Buck of the City) told Boles he could not issue a citation. My assumption is wrong, it was the City of Glen Rose police. I have left a message for Buck to find out how to do an open record for the police report for this ticket. Of COURSE! It’s NOT HIS JOB OR HIS RIGHT TO USURP THE POLICE. Then he, hah, tried to backtrack that he never said he could write a ticket.

The cherry on this chitshow is, though, that the cops came back to this lady to issue her a ticket for *disorderly conduct* for the sticker.

So let’s see. She is minding her own business at her house, happily listening to tunes and some unctuous man comes and bothers her because IN HIS SIGHT he sees a symbol of constitutionally protected free speech on a car. He must have a terrible life, as freedom of speech in this country allows all types of things that, oops, might offend someone else. Maybe his next crusade, as he sure seems like one of those weird christian nationalists, should be against television and movies.(He never read 1 Peter 4:15 that says “none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer OR AS A BUSYBODY IN OTHER PEOPLE’S MATTERS)
It looks to me that Boles was unhappy that he couldn’t force this lady to remove her bumper sticker and he persuaded the cops to issue her a disorderly conduct ticket, which from what I can see is about BEHAVIOR, not the existence of a bumper sticker on a car. Here is the law about disorderly conduct in Texas (I am not a lawyer but anyone can see this on the internet) When it comes down to freedom of speech, which is constitutionally protected, versus someone specifically trying to incite an immediate breach of the peace, that’s different and even obscene speech is protected. I mean, listening to music with a bumper sticker on a car on private property is NOT trying to deliberately create a breach of the peace, at least not in my opinion. What is this poor man going to do if he leaves the confines of his house and goes anywhere and gasp, sees a bumper sticker that contains words he does not like? The decision below makes a distinction for a *captive audience*. Sheesh. It just feels like they were trying to pacify the mayor with this ticket, which ought, properly, to be dismissed and not go on any record. Did Allen West know these deputies did this? I find it hard to believe, since he is really good about protecting lawful activities) Again, verified with Somervell County Sheriff’s Department, this was the City of Glen Rose police. (Side note that Somervell County is not above doing this type of nonsense. Remember when Ron Hankins, who is currently board head of the Somervell County Hospital District, tried to lodge charges against someone who wrote a letter to the newspaper??? ahhaah.
For our purposes, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (95 SC 2268, 45 LE2d 125) (1975), is closely analogous to the present case. In Erznoznik the Court considered a statute which banned any movie, slide, or exhibit visible from any public street or public place which showed bare human buttocks, bare human pubic area, or bare female breasts. [W]hen the government, acting as censor, undertakes selectively to shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others, the First Amendment strictly limits its power. [Cits.] Such selective restrictions have been upheld only when the speaker intrudes on the privacy of the home, [cit.], or the degree of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure.
Id. at 209. Noting that the ordinance discriminated among movies on the basis of content and that the effect of the ordinance was to prevent the showing of movies containing any nudity from drive-in theaters, the Court concluded that “the limited privacy interest of persons on the public streets cannot justify this censorship of otherwise protected speech on the basis of its content.” Id. at 212. Even assuming that the ordinance was aimed at the prevention of children seeing the nudity, the ordinance was impermissibly broad since even in regard to children all nudity is not obscene. Finally, if the purpose of the ordinance was to prevent traffic accidents as motorists caught glimpses of nude bodies on a giant screen, the ordinance was invalid since a fleeting glance of nudity from a moving car could not impose a greater traffic danger than many other types of scenes. Therefore, for purposes of traffic regulation the ordinance was underinclusive.
….
The state contends that the statute does not regulate constitutionally protected speech. The statute prohibits bumper stickers containing 1) profane words which describe sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body; or 2) lewd words which describe sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body. As discussed above, the regulation of profane words has been deemed constitutional only in the context of “fighting words” or where regulation is necessary to protect a captive audience or minors. The statute before us does not simply regulate fighting words or words directed to a captive audience or minors. The pedestrian, passenger, or driver who sees a bumper sticker bearing profane words is not a member of a captive audience under Erznoznik, supra. The audience of observers of bumper stickers is not made up primarily of minors or other persons of delicate sensibilities. Moreover, while language on a bumper sticker might provoke outrage, the face to face confrontation necessary to trigger the exception allowing regulation of “fighting words” would be unlikely. We therefore hold that the provision regulating profane words on bumper stickers reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech and unconstitutionally restricts freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and by the Georgia Constitution.
In life, there are lots of things that are constitutional, including, again, freedom of speech, for which some prudes would like to stop people from exercising their rights as citizens. But America is a nation of diversity and if somebody doesn’t like freedom of speech, maybe either go move to another country that is more restrictive, or just AVERT YOUR EYES.
Adding some part of the Town of Greece vs Galloway, which was a case about legislative prayer in a government meeting. You can read the whole thing here if you wish (PDF) but what I want to point out is that the entity bringing the lawsuit was offended by the Town over prayer. Read what SCOTUS said about offense (starting on page 21)
In their declarations in the trial court, respondents stated that the prayers gave them offense and made them feel excluded and disrespected. Offense, however, does not equate to coercion. Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum, especially where, as here, any member of the public is welcome in turn to offer an invocation reflecting his or her own convictions. See Elk Grove Uni- fied School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 44 (2004)
(O’Connor, J., concurring) (“The compulsion of which Justice Jackson was concerned . . . was of the direct sort— the Constitution does not guarantee citizens a right entirely to avoid ideas with which they disagree”). If circum- stances arise in which the pattern and practice of ceremo nial, legislative prayer is alleged to be a means to coerce or intimidate others, the objection can be addressed in the regular course.
P.S. I do not live in the City but I’m sure the City residents who look at how the City is spending money may not like a loose cannon that might have to spend money on lawsuits. Oh, well, as long as he can go around and harass people!
P.P.S. If you are this person and keeping in mind I am NOT on Facebook, and you want to talk about it, feel free to send an email to talk@glenrose.net