Is flashing your headlights Free Speech?

[erkme73]

Please don't make this personal. It'll get the thread shut down, and then others who might have something to contribute won't be able to, and worse, the thread will fade into obscurity.

There is a huge push by our regulators to make everything that "might" hurt someone to be banned or controlled. Whether it's guns, our private information, an alcohol level that's too high (0.08 is now too high, and they're looking at dropping it to 0.05) - we see a very obvious trend towards a nanny state. But, after seeing how both parties openly attack those that are fighting to expose this pattern (i.e. Mr. Snowden), it's clear to me that this isn't a partisan thing. Both parties are complicit. Our government is supposed to operate by the consent of the governed.

My lawsuit against the state of Florida was one man's way of saying, "You do not have my consent to take my 1st Amendment right away". If more of us did this, it could reverse the tided - though I'm not very hopeful.

[Fl_Richard]

Originally Posted by Fred1609

Imagine the speeder who is warned by an oncoming motorist who is flashing his headlights now feels he's gotten away with one and picks up his speed again and at some point in the future driving in the same aggresive manner crashes, killing or maiming an innocent motorist (maybe a family member or friend). Although you would never know about the collision ticketing the speeder may have caused him to slow down for a period of time thereby possibly preventing an accident and all the associated misery tht comes with major collisions. Police arent likely targeting drivers going 10 mph over the speed limit on highways. I'm a traffic LEO and all I do is target motorist travelling 15 - 20 mph over the speed limit. The same drivers you are warning are likely the ones running thru your school zones and park zones. Personally it doesn't matter to me if you flash headlights, I'll see the same driver at some other point in his life at the roadside or an collision scene where he's mumbling "what have I done". Drivers don't often consider that the person they maybe warning is a guy who needs a ticket and might be driving thru their neighbourhood in the future. Its a proven fact that folks that get a ticket slow down for a time (months) afterward. And I'm sure folks have "stories" about being pulled over when only going 2 miles over the speed limit and all kinds of other slants on speed enforcement. I doubt anyone will come on the thread and admit to speeding or deserving the speeding ticket. Fact is that speed kills and the higher the speed the greater the injury or likely hood of death. And I have seen a lot of fatalities that could have been prevented. My two cents for what its worth.

"Imagine", "Possibly", "may have", "thereby possibly"...... All buzz words for why I should give up my rights for the possible protection of something that may or may not occur.

YES flashing lights is free speech. And I'll gladly do it to warn the other free Americans that big brother.... or a duck family is ahead and caution should be used.

[Jack1234]

Originally Posted by erkme73

There is a huge push by our regulators to make everything that "might" hurt someone to be banned or controlled. Whether it's guns, our private information, an alcohol level that's too high (0.08 is now too high, and they're looking at dropping it to 0.05) - we see a very obvious trend towards a nanny state.

I'm with ya on the 1st. Amendment (free speech) idea with respect to flashing one's headlights as a "warning" signal to oncoming traffic.....not so much with ya on the uncontrolled proliferation of firearms & drunk driving. As for the nanny state and toooooo much government .....well at best & last count over 30yrs ago (1982) there were over 23,000 pages of federal laws. You're going to need to pack a lunch if you want to make much of a dent in reducing this situation.

[Chuck 1935]

Originally Posted by Fred1609

Imagine the speeder who is warned by an oncoming motorist who is flashing his headlights now feels he's gotten away with one and picks up his speed again and at some point in the future driving in the same aggresive manner crashes, killing or maiming an innocent motorist (maybe a family member or friend). Although you would never know about the collision ticketing the speeder may have caused him to slow down for a period of time thereby possibly preventing an accident and all the associated misery tht comes with major collisions. Police arent likely targeting drivers going 10 mph over the speed limit on highways. I'm a traffic LEO and all I do is target motorist travelling 15 - 20 mph over the speed limit. The same drivers you are warning are likely the ones running thru your school zones and park zones. Personally it doesn't matter to me if you flash headlights, I'll see the same driver at some other point in his life at the roadside or an collision scene where he's mumbling "what have I done". Drivers don't often consider that the person they maybe warning is a guy who needs a ticket and might be driving thru their neighbourhood in the future. Its a proven fact that folks that get a ticket slow down for a time (months) afterward. And I'm sure folks have "stories" about being pulled over when only going 2 miles over the speed limit and all kinds of other slants on speed enforcement. I doubt anyone will come on the thread and admit to speeding or deserving the speeding ticket. Fact is that speed kills and the higher the speed the greater the injury or likely hood of death. And I have seen a lot of fatalities that could have been prevented. My two cents for what its worth.

You and Sargee need to lighten up. I am sure you have seen the worst of the worst, but thats your job. You are the guys we hire to clean up the messes the less informed make. We thank you for help keeping the bad guys under control. Take a break and enjoy the flowers. Maybe we are flashing our lights just to say "I Love You Man ". Now thats a happy thought. Always look at the bright side

[erkme73]

Originally Posted by Jack1234

You're going to need to pack a lunch if you want to make much of a dent in reducing this situation.

No doubt. But, at the time I was stopped, and realized what had happened (contempt of cop), I had no way of knowing my actions would actually get the FL legislature to amend the law. If someone would have told me this up front, I'd have said they needed to be fit for a straitjacket.

I think it's the sheer volume of redundant (and often times contradictory) laws and regulations that makes us feel apathetic and powerless to affect change. Yet, through luck, determination, and the blessing of having the necessary resources, did it happen in my case.

We all have to potential to speak up against perceived inequities and injustices. Your specific issue may seem trivial to all others, but it's important not to settle if at all possible.

Without this getting any more political than it already is, a great example is Ed Snowden. Whether you think he's a hero or traitor, we should all respect the convictions and principles this young man has to essentially end his life of comfort and wealth - just to expose what he sees as a travesty of our rights.

BTW, maybe firearms and alcohol are a bit too hot-topic, but on a sillier, yet just as important topic - think 32oz sodas in NYC.

[Hooligan]

Interesting discussion.
Flashing headlights to warm of radar ahead used to be a game of cat and mouse between drivers and the police.

It's apparently turned into the life's ambition of those lacking a more worthwhile purpose in life to roam the interstates flashing their headlights in hopes of getting a video to ridicule a law enforcement officer. Or better yet a chance to clog the court system with perceived violations of civil rights.

We are paying that officer to enforce the laws and protect the citizens, as well as having to humor the malcontents, whose ill conceived antics waste the officers time and our tax money.

Of course we only want the laws enforced that we agree with, it's not really criminal to break those anyway!!!

You asked!

FWIW - Ed Snowden betrayed a trust, there are procedures for bringing an injustice to light involving classified material and public exposure is not the first option. But it's only a law, however it carries severe consequences..

[erkme73]

Originally Posted by Hooligan

It's apparently turned into the life's ambition of those lacking a more worthwhile purpose in life to roam the interstates flashing their headlights in hopes of getting a video to ridicule a law enforcement officer. Or better yet a chance to clog the court system with perceived violations of civil rights.

It's ok Hooligan, you can benefit from my actions too.

FWIW - Ed Snowden betrayed a trust, there are procedures for bringing an injustice to light involving classified material and public exposure is not the first option. But it's only a law, however it carries severe consequences..

That may be true, but who does one report to about a secret program that no one knows exists. My guess is that even the members of Congress that 'knew' of the program were prohibited to talk about it (just like the CEOs of Google, et al). Maybe there were other avenues. The guy strikes me as smarter than most. If there was an alternative, maybe he had his reasons for avoiding it. Either way, I respect his conviction...

Just as I do with these suicide bombers - whose actions I vehemently detest. Yet, I do respect their commitment. What kind of faith and conviction does it take to get an otherwise sane person to believe in something so much that they're willing to end their own existence (and those of other innocent people)? I'm disgusted by the act, but can't help but think how much more good could come from people who had that kind of determination and will power, if only it were focused on positive actions.

Anyway - to get this back on topic (after I hijacked it) - to me, righting a wrong (no matter how trivial it may seem to you or others) is just as much a matter of principle.

[Chuck 1935]

Fred1609 and Sargee need to lighten up. I am sure you have seen the worst of the worst, but thats your job. You are the guys we hire to clean up the messes the less informed make. We thank you for help keeping the bad guys under control. Take a break and enjoy the flowers. Maybe we are flashing our lights just to say "I Love You Man ". Now thats a happy thought. Always look at the bright side
Opps, I missed Hooligan ! he just jumped in there !

[Hooligan]

Chuck, You are right!! I must have missed my nap......

[Wayne M]

Originally Posted by erkme73

...............That may be true, but who does one report to about a secret program that no one knows exists.

The constitution does not give someone the right to divulge information that has been declared classified. For anyone to be in a position to have access to classified information they go through a screening process. Some slip through the cracks. It is not the firsts time information has been given to the "enemy."

Why do you think it may be classified? Mainly because of the damage that can be done to our country because now those who wish to harm us know how to evade situations where they may be captured. It's not major brain science. Intelligence gathering has been going on for centuries. Think back. How may countries have been caught spying on the US? Now think of China. How many times have they been caught spying on the US? Once in recent history. Do you know why? Because they are good at it and they don't get caught. Maybe it has something to do with "keeping secrets," and they keep theirs to themselves.

Information that is detrimental to our country is classified at many levels. How one gets access to those levels is based on a "need-to-know." A person may have a top secret clearance but that does not mean he has access to all top secret material, only to the material that he has a need-to know.

Now why does the WORLD need to know. If you (in general) are not doing anything wrong there is absolutely no need to worry.

The first amendment may give you the right to flash your lights, but it does not give a person the right to divulge information that can cause harm to others. One could argue that flashing lights could harm someone later on because the speeder will speed up after passing the police, but I'm not going there. You can reach as far as you wish to.

Happy trails.


p.s., I don't give a darn that Kim Kardashian had a baby, nor of her personal life. Sheeesh, get on with the news, real news.

[Chuck 1935]

Originally Posted by Hooligan

Chuck, You are right!! I must have missed my nap......

[erkme73]

Originally Posted by Wayne M

The constitution does not give someone the right to divulge information that has been declared classified. For anyone to be in a position to have access to classified information they go through a screening process. Some slip through the cracks. It is not the firsts time information has been given to the "enemy."

As long as the OP and the moderators don't mind this going further OT we can go down this discussion... or we could start another thread.

To me the loss of liberties (including privacy) are as important as the other two (life and the pursuit of happiness). Thus, a government that is subverting the constitution - the very bedrock of our country's existence - should be called to task. It's no different than if a superior orders you to execute someone without due process. Do you simply "follow orders" because the operation is classified, or do you let your crisis of conscience do something about it?

In any case, I watched the nearly three hours of NSA brass, FBI, and their respective counsels talk to Congress yesterday. Gen. Kenneth Alexander, who just two days prior called Snowden a liar, and questioned anyone who would give credibility to a high school drop out, said that what Snowden has revealed has done irreversible damage to the NSA. By telling lies? Can't have it both ways, General.

I watched as these guys struggled to explain exactly how Snowden has aided the enemy or revealed anything that wasn't widely suspected or known. After all, any terrorist who wasn't operating under the presumption that all communications are being monitored by the USA, well, he's not a very good terrorist.

Snowden has gone out of his way to avoid divulging information that puts anyone at risk - his words. He "supposedly" has irrefutable evidence that every statement made by the top brass yesterday - and those by our politicians up until now - are absolute lies. It isn't often that one man has the power to slam the lid down hard on the hand of those trying to steal cookies.

Ben Franklin in 1759 said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." He, and the founding fathers would have revolted over the kind of secret Stasi behavior we're seeing.

Somethings - like honoring, respecting, and protecting our Constitution - rise above any secret/classified contract - especially when the secrecy exists specifically to prevent Americans from learning what their government is doing TO THEM.

[wa8yxm]

Just remember that old adage "Your Millage May Vary"

In this case it means the Judge's ruling may be binding in Fl, but not in 49 other states (Well 50 if you count DC as a state, 51 counting the state of confusion).

And it might (depending on the judge) not even bind in all Fl.. I do not know (or care at this time, no plans on visiting Fl any time soon).

[Possum]

I chatted with an ND Party ex minister of justice here in BC about this and he stated that falshing your lights to warn people of impending danger (danger not specified) is bot legal and expected. That danger could be anything from wildlife on the road, to workers ahead, to maybe even a police radar setup. Coming upon any of these suddenly can actually cause harm to people if a person loses control of their car. Warning people of impending danger lets them slow down gradually.