Special First Amendment Edition
| Sunday, Jun 14 2009 04:42 PM
Last Updated Sunday, Jun 14 2009 04:42 PM
Loading Stories
Advertisement
Honk if You Love the First Amendment Award: Helen Immelt believes her car has free-speech rights. Fortunately, a Seattle-area judge does not agree. The prolonged honking of one's car horn in front of a neighbor's home in the small hours of the morning is not protected by the First Amendment.
The neighbor had complained about Immelt's chickens (a violation of the rules of her neighborhood homeowners' association) back in 2006. She retaliated by blasting her horn outside the offending neighbor's house for about 10 minutes starting at 5:50 a.m. the next morning, followed by another round of honking at 8 a.m. outside the home of the association president. When a police officer investigated, she blasted her horn at him, too, which earned her a trip downtown in the back of a squad car for peace disturbance. She fought the citation but lost a jury trial.
She then appealed the case to the Washington Court of Appeals, where she represented herself. In his opinion, Justice C. Kenneth Grosse interpreted the words of the Founding Fathers like so: "Horn honking which is done to annoy or harass others is not speech." No opinion was issued on the First Amendment rights of chickens to cluck.
Please Don't Squeeze the Constitution Award: It's OK to write a love note on a square of Charmin, perhaps, but last week the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decreed that you can't write anything vile on that little tissue and call it free speech.
A rude note written on a piece of toilet paper by a Texas inmate and sent to a prosecutor is not constitutionally protected, the court ruled Monday. Texas prison administrators were within their authority when they docked George Morgan 15 days of good time credits for sending the note to an assistant Texas attorney general.
Morgan, incarcerated since 2002, is serving a 23-year term for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. In 2005, angry that the attorney had urged that an appeal in his case be dismissed, Morgan mailed her a note, essentially suggesting that she use the paper for its intended purpose. And he signed it.
The prison warden got wind of it and, citing prison rules governing the use of vulgar language, docked Morgan 15 days of good time credits. Morgan appealed and lost.
But shouldn't a person have the right to use the stationery of his choosing? Well, normally. But the court of appeal said lawful incarceration "brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights."
Liveliest Clash of Amendments: When Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen vetoed the so-called "guns in bars bill" -- yes, legislators actually wanted to allow people to pack sidearms in places where Tennessee's favorite adult beverage is consumed -- the leader of the Tennessee Firearms Association got angry.
John Harris called out the 50 prosecutors, police chiefs and sheriffs who supported the veto, telling his members in an e-mail to study the names, photos and employment details of the cops for future reference. To the governor's office, that sounded like an effort "to intimidate and retaliate against" them. Which it was.
The irony: The NRA and the TFA are behind legislation to keep concealed gun permit owners' names secret -- even if they're convicted felons, spouse abusers, stalkers or mentally ill. But Harris wants his people to be able to recognize their supposed political adversaries on the street -- or at least instill a little fear. Talk about a selective reading of the First Amendment.
Praise the Lord and Pass the Constitution Award: You can still read the Bible and eat tuna casserole at your minister's house if you live in one suburban San Diego community. Code enforcement officers had tried to force David Jones, pastor of National City church, to get a "major use permit" for his weekly potluck Bible study or risk fines. That permit could've run him $10,000.
After San Diego County government offices were deluged with complaints -- and a pro-bono constitutional lawyer rattled his sword -- the county relented and said Jones and his wife could continue holding the weekly meetings for about 15 people.
Jones believes someone in the neighborhood may have complained about the impact on parking, which seems like a legitimate gripe -- except that the Joneses have a parking lot behind their house where members of the Bible study group park. Hallelujah.
Get Your Argument Straight Award: Journalists are typically banned from potentially dangerous places in the same way the general public is banned. It was on that basis last week that U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled in favor of an Oakland city police officer who had handcuffed an Oakland Tribune photographer who had pulled over on the freeway to take pictures of a 2007 traffic accident (and didn't leave fast enough when so ordered). Fine, but that's allegedly not the reason the police officer gave for ordering the photographer to beat it.
Raymundo Chavez told the court that the officer told him he "had to go back to (his) car and leave because (he) didn't 'need to take these kind of pictures.'" No word on whether the judge authorized the OPD to pre-approve other aspects of the Tribune's news coverage.
