Sentences with phrase «offend public order»

In a recent opinion in People v. Martinez, Criminal Court Judge Ruben Franco held that» [w] hile most of us may consider it distasteful, and indeed foolish, to wear ones pants so low as to expose the underwear... «people can dress as they please, wear anything, so long as they do not offend public order and decency.»»

Not exact matches

Section 5 of the Public Order Act has resulted in many controversial arrests and prosecutions, including several instances in which police officers themselves have complained of being offended by people swearing around them.

The offending property owner, Vinod Khosla, billionaire venture capitalist, was ordered to «cease preventing public from accessing and using the water» unless and until a CDP is obtained.

It is not sufficient that others present are offended if public order is not disrupted.

It presages a law captured by the rhetoric of the right to freedom of expression without due regard to the value underlying the particular exercise of that right; a law in which, under the guise of the right to freedom of expression, the «right» to offend can be exercised without responsibility or restraint providing it does not cause a disruption or disturbance in the nature of public disorder; a law in which an impoverished amoral concept of «public order» is judicially ordained; a law in which the right to freedom of expression trumps — or tramples upon — other rights and values which are the vital rights and properties of a free and democratic society; a law to which any number of vulnerable individuals and minorities may be exposed to uncivil, and even odious, ethnic, sexist, homophobic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and anti-Islamic taunts providing no public disorder results; a law in which good and decent people can be used as fodder to promote a cause or promote an action for which they are not responsible and over which they have no direct control; a law which demeans the dignity of the persons adversely affected by those asserting their right to freedom of expression in a disorderly or offensive manner; a law in which the mores or standards of society are set without regard to the reasonable expectations of citizens in a free and democratic society; and a law marked by a lack of empathy by the sensibilities, feelings and emotional frailties of people who can be deeply and genuinely affronted by language and behaviour that is beyond the pale in a civil and civilised society.

Key factors identified by the Royal Commission in this regard were the often petty nature of much contact with the police and the way that this contact escalated into more serious offending and contact — with particular concern expressed at the «crucial importance which detention for public drunkenness occupies in Aboriginal custodial over-representation», [8] as well as other forms of public order regulation.