We had a visit from the Snow Hill police last night, two in fact. The first came after our neighbor called us and said she had witnessed a carload of kids steal several political signs from our front yard. We called the police and made a report.
The second visit came less than 30 minutes later when there came a knock on the door with such force, you might have thought it was warrant service. Answering the door we met the police officers with two teenage girls from Snow Hill High School in tow. They were busted. And not only did they have ours signs, but the officer said a search of their car turned up 50-60 other political signs they had stolen from other yards. Their intent, they said, was to prank the high school by putting them in the front yard of the school. As it turned out, the trick was on them, as the officer forced the girls to return to every residence, knock on the doors tell the people they had stolen the signs, apologize and repost the signs. We don't know if the girls were charged, but the officer told us they could be under federal rules. "It's the same as stealing mail," he told us. Yikes.
We think this presents an excellent opportunity for educators to impart an object lesson. Specifically, this issue raises questions about political free speech and what law enforcement authorities might view as attempts to suppress that speech, and not to mention why laws forbid posting political signs on government property. In fact, there's a whole class period of lessons here on the Bill of Rights. Educators should seize the opportunity to teach it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well Dick, I can't wait to hear your limitations of speech on public land.... do tell...
As for minors not having constitutionally protected rights.... well, you're wrong. They DO have a right to free speech. They DO have a right to peacably assemble and redress of grievances, they DO have a right to legal counsel. They DO have a right to not incriminate themselves. They are protected against cruel and unusual punisment. The DO have a right to confront and cross-examine their accusers. They DO have a right to a speedy trial. They Do (at least as much as the rest of us) have a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
About the only right (and this may vary state-to-state) is the right to keep and bear arms.
Actually Dick, the Supreme Court rulled just a few months ago, that a single occupant's permission to search a dwelling is no longer enough to allow authorities to search if other occupants do not also agree.
Secondly, I too have recently seen one of those "U.S. Army, Splitter comma Ear comma Mod.2 comma Mark V, crowd dispersers" and I would argue that because they cause pain and may cause injury, that they are not covered by First Amendment protections and are instead classified as "less-than-lethal" weapons.
Further, I would suggest that you have no constitutional protection against being offended by someone's speech. .... That is the whole point of that clause of the First Amendment - not to protect popular or agreeable speech, but to protect unpopular and disagreeable speech. By the same token, if the sppech is of such volume that it can be heard on your private property, you may have legal recourse in some instances.
I think I recall correctly, Dick, when I say the case reached the high court because one of the parties occupying said dwelling was NOT present when cops made the request to search, but the they could have easily been contacted.
Further, ownership of the property in question is not necessary to give or deny permission to search, only rightful possession. Were it otherwise the owner of a rental property could give permission to search a property, such as a home, that he owns but is leased to someone else.
"Now. It is painful for me to listen to the claptrap of protesters, so if MY ears hurt from THEIR noise, then they too should be prohibited from using their voices/music to "they cause pain and may cause injury"."
Dick,
You'd get laughed out of court with that argument.... Hell, I don't think you'd even make it to the summary judgment motion.
Post a Comment