That's silly, Mr. Skip Towne. Firemen are good people when it comes to fires. But, just like every category of person or job, not all.

There was a guy in my home town who was on the volunteer fire department rolls. He was a valued member of the team because he was very lucky when it came to spotting fires. Anyhow, one day, he called in a fire at a barn on the outskirts of town and when the fireguys arrived at the scene with their trucks and hoses and ladders and stuff, they found an extinguished candle jammed in a bale of hay.

FAX

I wouldn't tell a fireman anything I didn't want the police to know.

It puzzles you because of the way you end this post. It has everything to do with censorship, political correctness, and pussification.

Who gets to decide what is and isn't rude or offensive? It's perhaps the slipperiest slope there is.

We have yet to hear if it was against the law. However, said law, if in place, is certainly unconstitutional.

It has everything to do with civil rights because it dictates what you can say where. In this case, it has nothing to do with endangering others. (Fire in theatre). THERE IS NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.

I agree with everyone else here about Wal-Mart asking her to leave because she's offending other customers. But a government official issuing a ticket makes it a civil liberties issue.

If you don't stand up for rights, they usually disappear.

There is a law called "Disturbing the peace" in Texas.

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.

This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words likely to incite violence.

Disturbing the peace is typically considered a misdemeanor or an infraction depending on the jurisdiction and is often punishable by either a fine or brief term in jail.

It might fit that description but I don't believe that was what was written. And I don't think the fire marshall can give that. If so, that's pretty silly.

But then we still hit the slope with what constitutes "disturbing the peace". Is one fuck said aloud disturbing the peace? Some might argue it is.

Hmmm. Good debate, gentlemen. I'm very glad to see that you can discuss this matter without feeling the need for name-calling. There is hope for ChiefsPlanet, yet.

This raises a very interesting point, though. Obviously, in the USA, free speech is a protected right. However, does the owner of a particular property have the right to limit speech on his/her property? I mean, did Wal-Mart have the right to remove this lady from the premises based solely on her speech? If someone were to enter my place of business and use speech which I might find objectionable, do I have the right to remove that person for that reason and that reason only?

FAX

A fire marshal can give a ticket, since they are a "Civil service" worker. Sometimes, a fire marshal may be sworn in a law-enforcement officers as well.

Well, when she allegedly said the word, where the fire marshall came to her and politely told her that she shouldn't be swearing in public, the article allegedly says that she went on more profanity at the marshall, thus ignoring his warning.

He did give her a warning. If she was smart, and apologized for saying the bad word, she wouldn't even have a ticket.

Well, let's say you're a father or mother of kids, and you just happen to run across to somebody else who's been using foul language for a period of time. How would you handle it? Would you move away, or inform a Wal-Mart employee becuase of the distruptive behavior?

I don't see where it gives people the right to drop the f bomb at will. I don't think the founding fathers were walking down the street in tank tops and mullets yelling **** yeah!

Taken in the context that it was written - they were concerned with the right to express religious and political views and not be persecuted as had happened under British rule.

They had no idea that a couple hundred years later that the definitions of every word would be disected and argued over by a bunch of asshat lawyers.

Actually, I have (on more than one occasion) asked an individual to curb their excessive, foul language because my wife and young son were present, Mr. Coach. The last time was at a little league game, if you can believe that. Normally, it's something that I can handle myself without the need to involve an employee of the establishment at which I am present at the time. In every case so far, it's worked out without any sort of altercation. I suppose you never know when you're going to encounter a complete nutjob, though.

In this situation, I can't see that the fire marshall man did anything wrong. If he felt the need to give her a ticket, so be it. Let a judge figure it out.

However, that isn't really my question. My question has to do with the right of Wal-Mart (the owner of the property, in this case) to remove a person based solely on their speech. I honestly don't know the answer to this. I assume speech is viewed as a form of behavior ... maybe.

FAX

I don't think so. Yes, civility would be to stop. But when someone comes up to you and says you can't say something, the instinct is to continue or tempers flare.

Again, there was nothing wrong with saying the word. Perhaps she was being loud. But really there's no need for a ticket there. Ever. Period.

Didn't the state of Virginia outlaw lawyers at one point? I seem to recall reading that somewhere.

FAX

And hence, you mark the beginning of the erosion of rights.

Disagree. Again, as I said, the fire marshal did give her a warning and told her to curb it, at a polite manner, as the article mentioned.

She failed to heed his/her advice. So she got fined. Hell, she should be lucky that she wasn't thrown in jail for disturbing the peace. It's not like the fire marshal told her that she can't be talking about the Chiefs in the state of Texas. The fire marshal just told her to stop swearing, she she failed to do so. It's just that simple.

So, no matter what, you must concede to a public official? Seems pretty slippery there.

Again, what constitutes disturbing the peace? Obviously, it's usually enforced with fights, parties, or something like that. But in honesty, who gets to decide that and why?