That headline is an old joke....(phonetically it is sounded out at F u c...) you get the idea.
The Third District says inquiring about IF YOU SEE KAY under your breath in court is not criminal contempt. The opinion is here. Although the opinion actually says asking the court IF YOU SEE KAY does constitute direct criminal contempt, the court has to actually hear the word. If, as in the case at bar, the court is informed by some well meaning court personnel (snitch) as to what a defendant said, those facts do not constitute direct criminal contempt.
We say: balderdash. The use of the "F word" should be covered by the first amendment. Apparently one can say F-you to the Dolphins, the Marlins, or even (heaven forbid) the saintly Heat players, but saying it to someone wearing a robe constitutes direct criminal contempt. What a bunch of horse hockey. The next thing you know, judges will be holding jurors in contempt for tweeting during a trial. Whoops, that already happened to @BillyCorben.
Judging by the comments yesterday, one thing sells blog pages more than a Judge Hirsch post- a 007 controversy. A surprising number of readers believe the latest bond movie is the best bond movie. We take ours shaken, not stirred.
Bill Maher wants to know if, after their election defeats, the Republicans can evolve? He notes that it would be helpful for the GOP to first believe in evolution.
See You In Court.