Protest law found unconstitutional by 8th Circuit., page


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 41 times
Topic started on 13-8-2012 @ 02:46 AM by Wrabbit2000
Score one for the good guys and this is the city I was with Occupy in almost a year ago. This one is personally meaningful for the pains and pain in the butt we all had to take for being carefully on the sidewalk and yadda yadda to avoid having everyone arrested at once. Down she goes and a bad law bites the dust!

Let me first share what started it though:

Headline: 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists Sue St. Louis - Tuesday, May 12, 2009

ST. LOUIS (CN) - Two 9-11 conspiracy theorists say St. Louis used an unconstitutional ordinance to violate their right to free speech. Donald Stahl and William Demsar say city police arrested them on Feb. 6 for carrying a banner that stated, "911 Was An Inside Job!"

In their federal claim, the men say it was a peaceful protest calling for a new, independent investigation into the federal government's involvement into the events of September 11, 2001. The men say they were not blocking pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
Source

That's where it started back in 2009. Now, flash forward to the current day. We have an outcome and I can bring good news!


Protest Law Quashed in Conspiracy Monger's Friday, August 10, 2012

ST. LOUIS (CN) - The 8th Circuit struck down a St. Louis ban against demonstrations that impede street and pedestrian traffic, siding with a Sept. 11 conspiracy theorist who was arrested under the law.

After St. Louis police received a complaint about the "offensive sign," the men were arrested for violation of an ordinance that states: "No person shall sell or offer for sale any goods or merchandise, display any sign or pictures, participate in or conduct an exhibition or demonstration, talk, sing or play music on any street or abutting premises, or alley in consequences of which there is such a gathering of persons or stopping of vehicles as to impede either pedestrians or vehicular traffic."

A federal judge sided with the city at summary judgment, finding the ordinance to be a content-neutral time, place and manner restriction. But a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit reversed Monday, finding the ordinance to be unconstitutional on its face because its does not provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and it excessively chills protected speech.
Source

By the way, the court documents relating to each case are linked at the bottom of the source articles if anyone wants to view the details at that level.

The topic of the protest in this case is interesting, but certainly not the focus. I believe this represents a victory for the public and American citizens as a whole for the right to protest. Regardless of what that protest is about, whether it's Occupy STL or The Tea Party Movement. Either side are citizens and in this ruling the 8th Circuit did the people a great service. As a Circuit Court of Appeals their ruling is heard and felt over a wide area. I'm not sure how this case may directly effect other laws or situations, if at all, but the words and meaning of the ruling will certainly be noticed.

The 8th Circuit covers:

* Arkansas
* Iowa
* Minnesota
* Missouri
* Nebraska
* North Dakota
* South Dakota

It's getting fewer and farther between it seems for actually seeing the system work and help us rather than injure us. It does work occasionally though and it's a shame to let those events slip by unnoticed. So, I bring some up to the moment (in Business day terms, as it was Fridays Court schedule) delivery of this little Ray of Sunshine.


reply posted on 13-8-2012 @ 04:03 AM by ViktorHaze
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I'm not sure how it works down there, but does this mean that other groups in other circuit court jurisdictions could sue other city's and/or states for similar laws based on precedent?
And if, why don't they do so, immediately?
Nothing brings a smile to my face quicker than some control freaks getting their comeuppance.
To bad your corrupt supreme court ruled that free speech zones are lawful.
Even someone from outside your country can see that as a swine state move if ever there was one...



reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 02:36 PM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cd123456

I'd certainly agree that it's a shame the things are happening which bring this case about in the first place. If our elected leadership were as clear and serious about values as some of the court decisions have been then the atmosphere to encourage the abuses wouldn't exist, IMO.

I do see this all as a good sign though because the Judicial Branch is exactly who the Founding Fathers intended to be the check and final balance when the Congress and White House inevitably tried pushing the limits beyond reasonable.

I don't always agree with the Courts but that's largely because the laws they are handed to Judge with are stupid on steroids in so many cases. Often enough to matter, it does seem the Courts are starting to assert their place in opposition of some of whats happening, IMO. At least in terms of the High Courts.


reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 04:11 PM by cd123456
reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I can see your point and agree with it completely. Now will this translate into more court rulings in other districts to bring this issue to light across the whole country? That I hope for, but sadly cannot see happening.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^