Skip to main content

View Diary: Man faces 90 days in jail for honking in support of protest against Congressman (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  content neutral (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oxy Moron

    This law is being enforced, on its face, based on content only.  

    The "complaints" were related to a political protest. The police knew this fact and the police targeted horny people engaged, for the purpose of muzzling, political activity. The political activity and speech was of a single type, of a single issue and from a single political perspective.

    Even if the police did not first target the "sign holders" the fact that the police targeted citizens, generally, at a known place of political protest shows the police were on notice of this simple fact.

    There is nothing content neutral on the face of the statement of probable cause against Mr. Palmer.

    I realize we are talking apples/oranges to some extent. However, the non-content neutral application and intent of the police is glaring on the face of the complaint and without even looking at the context evidence.



    Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

    by Caoimhin Laochdha on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 04:02:15 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Application does not matter (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ben masel, Oxy Moron

      It is whether or not the statute being enforced is content neutral.  I haven't read the statute so I am not saying one way or another, but it is only the language of the statute that matters.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site