'F-bomb' litigant wants Supreme Court to review obscenity case

, The National Law Journal

   |3 Comments

Lawyers for the man convicted on a contempt charge for an outburst in federal court last year have filed a petition in the high court that asks the question: "Did the imperative use of the F-bomb" threaten judicial authority?

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Avon

    Yes, "Yes," you make a point that the case is about civility and decorum.
    But a failure of "decorum, civility, self-discipline and composure" in a person facing prison is probably healthy and certainly ordinary - and, more to the point, it should not be a crime.

    You said plenty to justify your conclusion that we're safer from anarchy if everyone is nice and polite, but you didn't say nearly enough to convict a man for inserting an irrelevant expletive into his remarks.
    The very true fact that one possible proof of that irrelevance may be "semantic" has nothing to do with your point - or the point raised by "Penetrating" below, either.

  • As my comment on the original Law.com article regarding Mr. Peoples states;;;it's not about semantics. It's about decorum, civility, self-discipline and composure, and respect for the practice of the law.
    Without these elements present in all courtrooms at all times, we might as well descend into anarchy.

  • The imperative in the sentence was not in the verb "to f___" itself, so Robert People's statement was in no way a threat.

    It's as if he had said, ""Tell Judge Currie, I say emphatically, to get off all my cases." He just said it coarsely, giving the court an excuse to manufacture charges to make him "be a good boy."

    A more fitting chastisement would be to make him stand in the corner, wear a pointy hat, and write standards.

    That said, Mr. Peoples, don't be late to your own party. You create animosity where you need it least.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202580571638

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.