It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Podunk prosecutors seek gag order against eighth-grader arrested over NRA shirt
8:17 AM 06/26/2013
The case of the rural West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and arrested in late April after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National Rifle Association just keeps getting weirder.
According to local CBS affiliate WOWK-TV, the student, 14-year-old Jared Marcum, was back at the Logan County Courthouse on Monday for a hearing because prosecutors Christopher White and Sabrina Deskins were seeking an emergency gag order.
Earlier this month, Marcum had been formally charged with obstructing an officer. He was also suspended from school for one day. His crime was refusing a teacher’s request to take off the shirt, which was emblazoned with a hunting rifle and the statement “protect your right.”
The school district’s policy doesn’t prohibit shirts promoting Second Amendment rights. Audaciously, Marcum returned to school after his suspension wearing exactly the same shirt. (RELATED: Eighth-grader arrested over NRA shirt returns to school in same shirt)
The 14-year-old now faces a $500 fine and a maximum of one year in prison or juvenile confinement.
In seeking the emergency gag order, the podunk prosecutors argued that Marcum’s interest would best be served if he, his attorney and his father are prevented from speaking about the case in the press.
Originally posted by TheSpanishArcher
After waking up, the first two things I read here are Bloomberg and his sparkler ban then this. Serious question, folks, why the hell are we not revolting against these subhuman scum?
1. A municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his duty is substantially overbroad and therefore invalid on its face under the First Amendment. The ordinance in question criminalizes a substantial amount of, and is susceptible of regular application to, constitutionally protected speech, and accords the police unconstitutional enforcement discretion, as is demonstrated by evidence indicating that, although the ordinance's plain language is violated scores of times daily, only those individuals chosen by police in their unguided discretion are arrested. Appellant's argument that the ordinance is not substantially overbroad because it does not inhibit the exposition of ideas, but simply bans unprotected "core criminal conduct," is not persuasive. Since the ordinance's language making it unlawful to "assault" or "strike" a police officer is expressly pre-empted by the State Penal Code, its enforceable portion prohibits verbal interruptions of police and thereby deals with speech rather than with core criminal conduct. Moreover, although speech might be prohibited if it consists of "fighting words" that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, the ordinance in question is not limited to such expressions but broadly applies to speech that "in any manner . . . interrupt[s] any policeman" and thereby impermissibly infringes the constitutionally protected freedom of individuals verbally [482 U.S. 451, 452] to oppose or challenge police action. Appellant's contention that the ordinance's sweeping nature is both inevitable and essential to maintain public order is also without merit, since the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words, but impermissibly provides police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that are simply annoying or offensive. Pp. 458-467.
a) Any person who by threats, menaces, acts or otherwise, forcibly or illegally hinders or obstructs, or attempts to hinder or obstruct, any law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500 or confined in jail not more than one year, or both fined and confined.