ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act

[Fat Point Jack]

The guy here in Fat Point sure has that interest.

I considered confronting him:

Me: I not much on fucking old guys, but that Hillary, when she was younger, she was a fox.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The guy here in Fat Point sure has that interest.

Who?

 

[Fat Point Jack]

Who?

On The Front Lines​

Florida Town Bans ‘Indecent’ Political Speech on Signs & Clothing, Fines Protesters $3000 for Displaying Flags Proclaiming ‘F--k Biden’​

816 15 3
August 04, 2021
PUNTA GORDA, Fla. —Two Florida residents have been fined $3000 for displaying protest flags with the political message “F--k Biden” in violation of a city ordinance banning signs, clothing and other graphic displays containing words that the city deems “indecent.” In coming to the defense of Andrew Sheets and Richard Massey, attorneys with The Rutherford Institute challenged the City of Punta Gorda’s ban on indecent speech as unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the First Amendment’s safeguards for political speech that may not be censored or punished by the government. After a contentious hearing in which the Code Enforcement Board refused to acknowledge the constitutional concerns raised, the Board fined Massey and Sheets $500 and $2500 respectively. The Rutherford Institute plans to appeal the imposition of the fines.

Affiliate attorney Phares Heindl is assisting The Rutherford Institute in its defense of Massey and Sheets’ right to political expression under the First Amendment.

“The right of political free speech is the basis of all liberty. No matter what their political persuasion might be, every American has a First Amendment right to protest government programs or policies with which they might disagree,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Ultimately, the First Amendment assures every individual the right to speak truth to power using whatever nonviolent means are at their disposal. As comedian Lenny Bruce—a lifelong champion of free speech—remarked, ‘If you can’t say ‘F--k’ you can’t say, ‘F--k the government.’”

On June 2, 2021, the City Council of Punta Gorda, Fla., enacted amendments to its ordinances governing signs, flags and other graphic displays prohibiting “[a]ny sign that contains obscene language or graphics; and any sign containing fighting words or indecent speech which is legible from any right-of-way or within any public space, and which can potentially be viewed by children under the age of 17.” The ban extends not only to signs and flags, but to words appearing on clothing. The ordinance defines “indecent speech” as “language or graphics that depict or describe sexual or excretory activities or organs in a manner that is offensive as measured by contemporary community standards.” Believing the ban on “indecent speech” to be a violation of his First Amendment rights, Andrew Sheets, a long-time advocate for government and police accountability, opted to challenge the City’s decision to prohibit speech it deemed unacceptable by exercising his right to political speech. On several occasions, Sheets stationed himself in public areas in Punta Gorda displaying protest flags with the words “F--k Biden” and other provocative political messages. Sheets was cited for violating the new ordinance and assessed separate fines of $100 and $200 for displaying indecent speech. Richard Massey, also angered by the City’s attempt to censor speech, similarly opted to exercise his right to political speech by displaying a “F--k Biden” sign outside City Hall. Massey was cited and assessed a fine of $100. As allowed by City ordinance, Sheets and Massey challenged the fines by requesting a hearing before the City’s Code Enforcement Board. Coming to Sheets and Massey’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that the ordinance’s ban on indecent speech is unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on content- and viewpoint-based regulation of speech by the government. The Board refused to consider the constitutional arguments, found the men guilty, and upped the fines to $3000.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

In coming to the defense of Andrew Sheets and Richard Massey, attorneys with The Rutherford Institute challenged the City of Punta Gorda’s ban on indecent speech as unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the First Amendment’s safeguards for political speech that may not be censored or punished by the government.

I agree with The Rutherford Institute and might have to make my own "FUCK CENSORSHIP" sign just to see if I can get in trouble too.

Mr. Massey is barely on Facebook but Sheets is pretty active and seems to like pointing cameras at cops.

That's a whole nuther thread, but I like people who point cameras at cops and dislike cops who don't appreciate it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

In mural banning news, the town of Conway doesn't like donut pix...

Kochy Nutjob Law Firm Calls on Conway Officials to Stop Attack on Bakery’s Donut Mural



The Leavitt's Bakery mural is pretty good for a bunch of kids.

The letter didn't work. Leavitt's is suing.

Bakery Owner Sues New Hampshire Town After Officials Demand He Paint Over Donut Mural Made by High Schoolers

...
Leavitt’s is so loved that a group of Kennett High School students offered to paint a mural for the business. The students decided that the mural should depict a colorful mountainscape of baked goods with the sun rising behind them, in honor of the nearby White Mountains. The mural, which was unveiled in June 2022, became an instant hit with Leavitt’s customers.


But it isn’t as popular with Conway’s assistant building inspector. Less than two weeks after the mural was painted, the inspector visited the bakery and informed Sean that because the mural depicts donuts and scones, and Leavitt’s is a bakery, the mural is considered a “sign” subject to the town’s strict regulations. And while the town ordinance allows Leavitt’s only about 22 square feet of total signage, the mural painted by the students measures about 91 square feet.


“Government bureaucrats don’t get to play art critic and decide what is and isn’t art,” said IJ Senior Nutjob Rob Frommer. “Leavitt’s could legally have a mural the exact same size if it didn’t show any items they sell. That makes no sense and violates the First Amendment.”


The assistant building inspector informed Sean that he could apply for a variance to keep the mural up. When Sean did so in September 2022, he had the backing of Conway residents: More than 1,000 people commented on Leavitt’s Facebook page in support of the mural and scores of letters to the editor have been published in the Conway Daily Sun arguing that the mural should stay. Yet the Conway Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) voted unanimously against granting the bakery a variance. Then, in November, the ZBA doubled down, again denying the variance.


“I couldn’t believe the town was going after me for giving high school students a way to express their artistic passions and contribute something fun and delightful to the community,” Sean said. “This mural isn’t hurting anyone. If anything, it has brought the community together.”
...

I agree with the quoted nutjob. The objection is content-based and that's a first amendment problem.

Denying the variance twice is just normal bureaucratic recalcitrance. If they ever say yes, they might have to ... well ... I don't know but it's apparently scary.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The NRA Has Lost More Than a Million Members​

The Reload: Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told attendees at the gun-rights group’s most recent board meeting that the organization is down to 4.3 million members… That represents a downturn of more than a million members since allegations of financial impropriety were leveled against LaPierre and other members of NRA leadership in 2019.

The NRA is now smaller than it has been since 2012 when internal documents show the group had 4 million members.

https://thereload.com/nra-has-lost-over-a-million-members-since-corruption-allegations-surfaced/
https://politicalwire.com/2023/02/10/the-nra-has-lost-more-than-a-million-members/

They'd have to lose a few million more to be useful on the first amendment front again. The DISCLOSE Act was amended to exempt all covered organizations with over a million members. All two of them at the time: the NRA and the Sierra Club. Suddenly, NRA opposition evaporated.

My conclusion: we'd be better off if the NRA were under a million members and once again able to see the dangers that are apparent to smaller groups like the SAF

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

In Puritans vs Plates news, this is an actual line from an oral argument in a court:

"In fact, there are multiple iterations of the plate DEEZNTS, are there not?"

Spoiler: yes, there are.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

People have to know what they can talk about.

That's one Wise Latina.

I agree with the ACLU lawyer too.

...
At oral arguments on Monday, lawyers representing Hansen told the court that the federal government was trying to rework the statute itself to save their prosecution. “The government concedes that the statute is unconstitutional under its plain meaning,” Esha Bhandari, an ACLU lawyer who argued on behalf of Hansen, told the justices. “Instead, it asks this court to rewrite the statute to prohibit only solicitation and aiding and abetting. But that is Congress’s job, and Congress in 1952 took out the very words the government now asks this court to write in: ‘solicit’ and ‘assist.’”
...
During oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply questioned the Justice Department about its reading of the statute. She cited a hypothetical where a grandmother is in the country without authorization and her son tells her she is always welcome to stay with them. “Can you prosecute this?” she asked Fletcher. “And, if not, why not? So what do you tell the grandmother?”

“I think not, Justice Sotomayor, I think it’s very hard to—” Fletcher began. Sotomayor then interrupted him. “Stop qualifying with ‘think,’ because the minute you start qualifying with ‘think,’ then you’re rendering asunder the First Amendment,” she told him. “People have to know what they can talk about.”
...

The orchestrated chorus of amici in the Hansen case includes Pfizer (a company we know that Ginny Thomas hates) and a pair of Kochy Nutbriefs. It appears that the evil Koch empire has instructed all minions to support the ACLU on this one, so that's what I'm doing.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The letter didn't work. Leavitt's is suing.

Bakery Owner Sues New Hampshire Town After Officials Demand He Paint Over Donut Mural Made by High Schoolers



I agree with the quoted nutjob. The objection is content-based and that's a first amendment problem.

Denying the variance twice is just normal bureaucratic recalcitrance. If they ever say yes, they might have to ... well ... I don't know but it's apparently scary.

Voting to allow the donut mural didn't work either, the suing will continue.

Yesterday, a vote to change the definition of “sign” under Conway’s zoning laws narrowly failed to pass. The vote was in response to the town’s crackdown on a mural of donut mountains above Leavitt’s Country Bakery and other murals throughout town. The town’s discrimination against Leavitt’s and other speakers prompted the Institute for Justice (IJ) to team up with Leavitt’s to launch a First Amendment lawsuit in January.

“I’m somewhat surprised by the result of yesterday’s vote and we’ll keep fighting to save the students’ artwork and stand up for the First Amendment,” said Leavitt’s owner Sean Young.
...

Mmmmm... donuts.