The unconstitutional Arizona harassment statute, a favorite tool of the police state of Arizona and Sheriff Joe Arpaio used to silence dissent, is challenged in the United States Supreme Court in Huminski v. City of Surprise, Arizona. The statute is unconstitutionally vague, unconstitutionally over broad and targets expression protected under the First Amendment. A nice fit for Arizona it seems.
Supreme Court - FIRST AMENDMENT ATTACK UPON ARIZONA HARASSMENT STATUTE - Sheriff Joe Arpaio not happy
Huminski v. City of Surprise, Arizona
In a filing received by the U.S. Supreme Court, government is portrayed fervently defending a state criminal harassment statute that makes any speech contrary to the government's goals a crime under, AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921 (criminal harassment)
Speech that tends to "alarm, annoy or harass" anyone, including government officials and police, is a crime in Arizona. Silencing dissent is the hallmark of a police state.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari here...
Worth noting is that thirty five (35) other States, the District of Columbia and Guam have exempted constitutionally protected conduct from their harassment (or similar stalking) statutes. Not Arizona, silencing dissent is too important to the republican led legislature of that primitive State.
No surprise that this statute exists in Arizona. Under the patently unconstitutionally vague and overbroad harassment statute, this Supreme Court litigation is a crime as is this post when read by a resident of Arizona, say … Sheriff Joe Arpaio. No doubt that the litigation and this article tends to "annoy" the Sheriff and like-minded residents of Arizona.