A Florida man was arrested for displaying an obscene bumper sticker on the back of his truck, one that either expressed his sexual preferences, or his love for a four-legged animal.
After Dillon Shane Webb was told the sticker was “derogatory,” he claimed his freedom of expression was violated, and the deputy’s office asked if he was using his free speech to express his desire of “eating a donkey.”
Keep reading to learn why Webb was arrested over a bumper sticker!
In 2019, a Columbia County sheriff’s deputy was driving behind a pickup truck when he noticed a vulgar sticker plastered on the middle of the rear window.
Dashcam footage shows Deputy Travis English stopping his cruiser in a parking lot behind the brown pickup, operated by Dillon Shane Webb, 23, with the bumper sticker in clear view.
The letters on the sticker – printed in bold white – reads, “I EAT A**.”
In the video, the deputy approaches the passenger side of the truck and after saying, “hello gentleman,” he explains that he pulled the car over due to “the derogatory sticker” displayed on the back of his truck.
In Florida, law prohibits “any sticker, decal emblem or other device attached to a motor vehicle containing obscene descriptions, photographs or depictions.”
“How’s it derogatory?” Webb asks from inside the car.
The officer replies, “How’s it not derogatory?”
“Some 10-year-old kid sitting in the passenger seat of his momma’s vehicle looks over and sees ‘I eat a**’ and asks his mom what it means,” English says. “How is she going to explain that?”
Sniping back, the driver provides the wrong answer: “That’s the parent’s job, not my job,” Webb says before he’s asked to present his driver’s license and registration.
After stepping out of the vehicle, Webb is searched, and the deputy tells him the sticker is a “misdemeanor violation of Florida’s obscene materials law.”
“I have four kids…if my 6-year-old was to look at me and like, ‘dad what does I eat a** mean?…he’s curious…and the way [you] handled this situation, I’m not pleased with,” English said before offering Webb the opportunity to explain his sticker to the court system.
Next, the deputy suggests Webb remove one of the letters from the word “A**” to read “AS.” But Webb refused, citing his constitutional right to free speech.
A few minutes later, things take a nasty turn for Webb.
After confirming with his supervisor that he had reasonable rights within the law, English steps out of his cruiser and approaches Webb, who’s leaning against his car, looking at his cellphone.
“All right Mr. Webb. Place your hands behind your back,” Webb is told. When he asks “why?” he learns “because you’re going to jail.”
Asking “for what?” English explains that he was given “the option to take that off” the window, but he “refused.”
He was then arrested and charged with the additional offense of “resisting an officer without violence.”
‘Perverted mind’
“They’re just words,” Webb later told First Coast News. “If that’s how they feel, if they have a perverted mind, that’s on them.”
But according to Sergeant Murray Smith of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office, it wasn’t just the words on the sticker that Deputy English determined was illegal.
“It was the obscene phrase depicting what the deputy thought was a sexual act, which is obscene by definition,” said Smith. “What would a reasonable citizen think? Is the guy eating a donkey or is he doing a sexual act?”
The incident captured the attention of a lot of social media users, the majority who defended Webb.
“So what if he eats donkey. What’s the big deal?” asks one netizen. Another, referring to English speaking of his child’s potential reaction to the sticker, says, “Since when are a cop’s feelings deserving of an arrest?”
“I live here and as soon as we heard he got arrested we all went and got the sticker and put it on [our] trucks,” pens a third.
Another adds, “He better keep his kids off the internet. They will see far worse than this.”
The State Attorney’s Office cited the First Amendment and the charges against Webb were dropped. Later, Webb sued for alleged violations of his First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights, but U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the Middle District of Florida ruled that the arrest was “arguably justified under Florida’s obscenity law,” giving the officer and his supervisor “qualified immunity,” which means they are protected from the lawsuit.
This case underscores the ongoing debate in the U.S. over free speech and its boundaries, especially around expressions some might find offensive or derogatory. It also reflects how the First Amendment remains a contentious issue, with some insisting their right to free expression is under threat, while others argue for consideration that certain messages will have on the population.
What are your thoughts on this story? Please share your thoughts with us and then share it with your friends so we can get the conversation going!
Woman tries to take her seat on a plane – but she refuses, and what happens next has the internet is divided
Not everyone finds flying to be a pleasurable experience. Some make care to take precautions for their comfort before they leave on their journey. However, not everyone pays attention to the same item.
This woman traveled with knowledge of her needs and fulfilled them. Others, nevertheless, did not share that perspective.
Both physically and symbolically, a woman found herself in a very unpleasant situation. She struggled to put her comfort before what society expected of her. She had to decide whether to be giving or assertive about her personal space.
In order to spend Christmas with her family, she was traveling across the nation. She was aware that she needed to feel comfortable when flying. She always reserves an additional seat on a flight because of her stature. She always pays more to make sure she’s comfortable.
She breezed through security and boarding, and everything about the check-in happened without a hitch. The terrible encounter started just when she settled into her seat. Sitting next to her was a mom and her eighteen-month-old child. When she noticed that one seat was empty, she asked the woman to quickly make room for her toddler by squeezing herself onto one seat. She declined, though, since the original occupant had paid for both seats.
A flight attendant saw that the encounter was getting attention and stopped by to find out more. The flight attendant was asked if she could accommodate the youngster after the scenario was described to her. The woman respectfully rejected and reiterated that she had paid for both seats in full.
Thankfully, the flight attendant understood and told the mother to place her child on her lap, as is customary for most youngsters of that age. However, the mother made care to give the woman unpleasant stares and passive-aggressive comments during the trip.
The woman subsequently questioned whether she had been unjust in their exchange and ought to have granted her extra seat. She asked the Reddit community if she had made a mistake.
“I’ve taken 9-hour flights with an infant in my arms and shorter flights with a toddler in my lap, who was capable of sitting in his own seat and very much did not want me to hold him,” wrote one response, a woman who had experienced a similar circumstance. Was it a disaster? Indeed. However, that was just my issue, and I decided to hold my child as long as he was under 24 months old and I wasn’t required to pay for his seat. Not every parent is this entitled, I promise!
“She’s wrong for not buying a seat for her son and assuming someone else would give up a seat they paid for,” said an additional commenter. It’s likely that she took use of the lap thing as a loophole and hoped there would be spare seats available on the aircraft to avoid paying.
Another enraged Redditor said, “I’d go so far as making a complaint to the airline about their employee supporting another passenger harassing you.”
“You should always do what you can to be as healthy as you can, but being fat isn’t a character flaw or a moral failing,” remarked another irate user. Even if you aren’t currently reaching your goals, you shouldn’t be ashamed of your body or yourself because everyone has their own struggles in life. The mother ought to have bought an additional seat if she wanted one for her children. She has no right to the seat you bought, and you shouldn’t feel sorry for her inappropriate actions.
However, others could also be able to understand the mother’s desire for a comfortable flight. If that had been crucial to her, though, she would have made sure to secure her child’s seat first.
In this exchange, who do you believe is in the right? Tell us in the comments below! Talk about this with others so they can add their thoughts as well.
Leave a Reply