New York Penal Law 215.50(7) provides for criminal prosecution and incarceration for up to 1 year in jail for the following conduct:
"A person is guilty of criminal contempt in
the second degree when he engages in any
of the following conduct:
On or along a public street or sidewalk within
a radius of two hundred feet of any building
established as a courthouse, he calls
aloud, shouts, holds or displays placards or signs
containing written or printed matter, concerning
the conduct of a trial being held in such
courthouse or the character of the court or
jury engaged in such trial or calling for or
demanding any specified action or determination
by such court or jury in connection with such trial."
If you are a woman or identify as such,
you can, of course, argue that, since criminal
laws must be strictly construed, and this statute
says applies only to "he"-persons, by its
clear text.
We can shout all we want that specific judges
are crooks for specific reasons and demand
courts to provide a specific result - charge
judges who are crooks criminally and jail them.
Right?
Or, we can carefully measure 200 feet and 1 inch
away from the courthouse, have our location
documented by videotaping and follow the list of
prohibited conduct to our heart's desire.
Right?
Of course, the bravest of us can stand right
in front of the courthouse with slogans
criticizing a judge and then sue the suckers who
attempt to arrest and prosecute them based
on a statute that clearly violates our
1st Amendment right of self-expression and
political criticism.
I also wonder - why 200 feet? Why not 100? Not 300?
Nor a kilometer? You know, those sound waves
can carry over a megaphone quite well.
And - why having a Nazi parade in front of Holocaust
survivors not a problem while criticizing courts
is?
Why burning a cross on the lawn in front of
the house of African Americans not a problem while
criticizing courts is?
Why saying nasty things in front of grieving
relatives and friends at the funeral
of a fallen soldier not a problem
while criticizing courts is?
I guess, I seek logic while, while it is wrong
to do so. After all, I was already punished
for seeking it, in writing, in pleadings.
When will I learn?
So, instead of seeking any logic in brazenly
unconstitutional statutes protecting
corrupt judiciary from criticism - you step
200 feet and one inch from the courthouse,
take a megaphone in hand, put a giant sign
"LOCK UP CORRUPT JUDGE DOE" or such like - and
you are good to go.
Especially if you are a woman, remember,
this is a "he" statute.
And you know what is also GOOD about this statute?
It shows that the bastards in that courthouse are
afraid of exposure.
So exposure is what they should be getting.
It seems to be limited to speech about a trial currently taking place. So it's aimed at preventing outside influence on jurors I guess.
ReplyDeleteMy voice can carry 1,000 fwet I'd bet! And through closed courthouse windows.
It seems to be limited to speech about a trial currently taking place. So it's aimed at preventing outside influence on jurors I guess.
ReplyDeleteMy voice can carry 1,000 fwet I'd bet! And through closed courthouse windows.
That's exactly the problem - "it seems". It does not clearly say that the statute seeks to prevent influencing specifically a jury in a jury trial. Moreover, it has this little word "or" indicating that the statute prohibits addressing the conduct of the trial OR the character of the court. Yet, it is not clear why a judge should be free from public criticism at any time. If a judge is corrupt and if the trial is being done in a corrupt manner, it is better
ReplyDeletethat the corruption be addressed, in every possible way, at the earliest time possible,
and in the most effective manner possible.
So - 200'1" and a megaphone it is.
Well, what I could never develop is a commanding voice :).
ReplyDelete