The D.C. Council has unanimously approved a law that makes it a crime to wear a mask while protesting outside of a resident. This bizarre law was passed because animal rights activists have been protesting outside of residences in Washington. The problem is that the law could be used to curtail free speech and gives the police another arbitrary basis to arrest protesters.
My GW faculty colleague, Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh, pushed for the passage on the basis that the protesters “scared some people so much that they feel like prisoners in their own homes.” There appears, however, little attention given to the free amendment ramifications of the law. The D.C. police have been repeatedly accused of using arbitrary or unlawful means to arrest protesters, including the still pending World Bank case (in which I am serving as co-lead counsel).
A group called Defending Animal Rights Today and Tomorrow is the local voice for Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty, a group dedicated to oppose Huntington Life Sciences which provides animals for corporate science experiments. They have been protesting outside of the Dupont Circle home of a Goldman Sachs executive, who the group claims is connected to HLS. They were masks and trench coats marked by fake blood to protest the work of the European company.
If the protesters assemble in groups of more than tree without informing the police and protesting in the evening, they can now be arrested as masked in public.
Civil libertarians have roundly opposed the bill, but Chen (a constitutional law professor) insists that the law is based on a 1988 Supreme Court case allowing the criminalization of “objectionable speech.” This appears to be a reference to Frisby v. Schultz, where the Court allowed a prohibition on picketing outside of a home as “content neutral.” Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens condemned the ruling as inimical to free speech. The normally liberal D.C. Council is relying on a case supported by Rehnquist, Scalia, White, Blackmun, and written by Sandra Day O’Connor.
In his dissent, Justice Stevens began in this way:
“GET WELL CHARLIE — OUR TEAM NEEDS YOU.”
In Brookfield, Wisconsin, it is unlawful for a fifth grader to carry such a sign in front of a residence for the period of time necessary to convey its friendly message to its intended audience.
Applying that in this case, imagine if the criteria was simply wearing a mask during a protest late at night or early in the morning. Any mask. Any subject. Even a bandana would be sufficient to allow the police the discretion. For those who insist that the bandana was not over their face or that they were wearing a winter mask, it would be their words against those of the police.
Nevertheless, Council member Cheh insists that the ban is necessary “because a group is able to beat the system.”
I certainly understand Cheh’s concerns and Frisby does have language to support her position. However, I would have to disagree with the notion of “beating the system” when the first amendment is what is protecting such speech. As noted by Justices Brennan, Stevens, and Marshall, such laws sweep too broadly and invite arbitrary enforcement. The law also does not allow for anonymity since only protesters with masks face arrest. In Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, the Supreme Court reaffirmed such protections and I previously wrote a law review piece on that case and the right to anonymity. turley-1 (The Supreme Court rejected one aspect recently in John Doe # 1, et al., v. Reed, et al. (09-559) dealing the public disclosure of signatories to a petition. 09-559
What the new D.C. law does is strip protesters of anonymity and increases the powers of the police to arrest individuals who are engaging in free speech activities. It will be interesting to watch if this law is challenged as applied in future cases.
Source: Washington Examiner
Jonathan Turley
hot = hat
Maybe, it has become apparent that you don’t have to be able to play very well and the banjo….well…it still sounds like a banjo…..
Yes, Bob….it would be nice to know what the hell Kay is talking about…but, what she must remember is that anything that she says can be checked out on pacer if you have an account…so, what she leaves out will be able to be filled in and verified…I think she still has the ally lumin hot on for protection from the gamma rays…..then again…how far is she from Roswell? Area 54?
Look out! AY is going for his banjo! 🙂
So Kay,
Tell us about this lawsuit of yours.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It appears as though we are in a period of history where it is popular to quite the protesters… works for those with power, we will see what happens to civil liberties.
Depending….Blouise….maybe like a brother from the Ozarks….
Don’t cry, AY, I know anon nurse loves you like a brother
I’ll have a Blue Christmas without you too Buddha…..
I make up laws?
roflol
Whatever, fruit loop.
Thanks Blouise,
Excellent point Buddha….
Anon Nurse….what you don’t love me no more….I am crushed…hurt…I am gonna turn into Eeyore…in a melancholic deep bass toned voice….no body likes me…everyone has forgotten by birthday….
Dear BIL
I don’t want to hire you because you make up laws. I’m tired of hearing about it too but I’m going to keep talking about it until the government requires that its Automated Booking Systems be used and that their list of offenses corresponds to the U.S. code.
My “I couldn’t say it any better” comment was in reference to the following:
“Arbitrary enforcement is what the bad guys want. Plain and simple.” -Buddha
Our host stated: “The D.C. police have been repeatedly accused of using arbitrary or unlawful means to arrest protesters…”
Couldn’t say it any better than Buddha.
I woke up in something appoximating “a police state” about 3 and half years ago… We’re very close. Make no mistake…
(I’m a law-abiding nurse, but I’ve seen things these past few years that I never thought I’d see in U.S. I was very naive…)
kay,
That response (other than an attack on me for not working for you for free) is gibberish in context of the subject and once again illustrates why non-professionals lack the proper understanding of the law to practice it even on their own behalf. The right to public free speech has only a tangential relationship to contempt of court for non-compliant process.
Hire. Your. Own. Lawyer. Nitwit.
I’ll keep telling you that and only that in relation to your personal legal problems – problems which you in part created through your own stupidity in representing yourself and personal problems just about everyone here is tired of hearing about ad nauseum.
AY,
Excellent questions
Kay,
So you were held in contempt….this has happened to a lot of folks….If the suit was without merit…you earned it…Ask Richard “Race Horse” Haynes….he did lots of time for many different contempts…What I am saying is quit your whining…You ain’t Jewish enough and I’ve yet heard you say…”I wanna go to Miami….” so suck it up as a cost of doing business in the Federal Court….
DOJ routinely keeps the names of its officers secret. They even opposed revealing the names of employees in an employment discrimination lawsuit.
So does this mean that SOD, SWAT Teams and LEO in general cannot wear gloves and masks when they are tear gassing the protesters?
So cops even cover up the badge number with a black band….Hmm…I suppose only the bad guys will wear masks….Huh
If you are so concerned about First Amendment Rights why don’t you use your great reputation to make sure that other people don’t have their finger prints taken and aren’t imprisoned by DOJ without a criminal charge like I was?
http://steamboatsprings.net/sites/default/files/2005/09/06/ccmn0906.pdf
CITY ATTORNEY S REPORT
Mr. Lettunich reported his work on the following:
1. The Federal District Court held a contempt hearing regarding Kay
Sieverding. She refused to dismiss the cases that she filed and was
arrested. Mr. Sieverding dismissed the cases but later reneged and said he will not dismiss the cases; so he may be arrested as well.
Arbitrary enforcement is what the bad guys want. Plain and simple.