The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the tale of Steven Howards, a Lane client who says his freedom of speech was chilled by the Secret Service at a Colorado appearance by then-Vice President Dick Cheney. What’s the crux of the case?
According to Lane, “The issue is, does probable cause for an arrest eliminate your right to have a trial on your First Amendment rights?”
The controversy dates back to a 2006 Cheney appearance in Beaver Creek.
[…]
“Hypothetically, a guy could make an anti-police speech to a crowd and then throw down a cigarette butt, and they could arrest him for littering when everyone knows the real reason he was being arrested was because they didn’t like his speech. And various circuit courts have held that you don’t get to go to court on a First Amendment claim if they had probable cause to arrest you for something else — and they can always come up with something to arrest you for, completely ignoring the fact that the subjective intent of the police officer was to punish you for free speech.
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Obviously, you can be arrested for something unrelated to a speech issue. So why don’t did cities NOT arrest the occupytards for violating so many local ordanances? Because so many politicians are so busy trying to be Progressives, or….. leftists.
I would be happy to see shit disturbers arrested and instead of a slap on the wrist (cited and released), make them spend two weeks picking up trash on the highway. Especially the “protestors” who interfere with people’s lives, as the morons in Oakland are planning for tomorrow.
That’s a losing case. Otherwise the guy could make his speech, shoot a politician and then claim he was arrested to prevent him from speaking. Sure, littering and assassination are pretty far apart but where do you draw the line?
“the 10th Circuit Court eventually ruled that the agents had justification to take him into custody”
Trying to save space on this blog? I like the way the suspect was
talking about the politician being a child killer and then grabbing
his shoulder gets reduced to […]
None of that is as relative as a theoretical butt on the ground.
I do so love when people completely miss the point.
The specifics of this one case aren’t it. This is one more tactic that can be used against anyone the government doesn’t like as we fall into a police state.
UncDave: I mostly agree with you but it’s not really anything new and it is as likely to be abused by civilians as the police. “Yer Honor, it’s true I kicked that crippled old lady’s crutch out from under her but it was a necessary demonstration of my freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Besides, the cop didn’t even like that old biddy. He only used it as an excuse to arrest me.”
If cops observe a crime, they should make the arrest and let the courts decide. OTOH, there should be stiff penalties (and I don’t mean suspension with pay) for LEOs found to have used their arrest powers to stifle free speech.