Brief filed in Louisiana branded driver’s license case.
Last week, the brief in opposition was filed in Louisiana v. Hill, a case the State of Louisiana would like the Supreme Court of the United States to hear. The issues in that case are: (1) Whether a state may require convicted sex offenders to obtain and carry a state identification bearing the words “sex offender” without facially violating the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech; and (2) whether a convicted sex offender has a First Amendment right not to be prosecuted for fraudulently altering a state identification card after scratching off a statutorily required sex offender designation.
In this battle, a registrant scratched off the words “sex offender” on his Louisiana drivers license and was arrested. Both the trial court and the appellate court found that branding the label “sex offender” on the license violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech and prohibiting someone from removing that objectionable language from their license (essentially forcing them to advertise the label they object to) also violates the first amendment. The State then jumped through a few procedural hoops, such as trying to get a stay, which didn’t work, and is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
We care about this case for a number of reasons… First, and most obviously, Florida also brands our drivers licenses, so a win in the highest court could certainly benefit us. Second, the federal government brands our passports (you can read more about that here: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6086&context=mlr). While they will try to argue that a passport is not the same as a driver’s license, it’s sure the same concept. Third, because the Attorneys general of the states of Oklahoma, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia all filed an amicus brief on behalf of Louisiana, so who knows what currently exists or what is being contemplated in those states? And finally, it’s just wrong!
A copy of the brief in opposition can be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1587/187241/20210811132211867_2021-08-11%2020-1587%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf
The likelihood of the case getting picked up for consideration by the Supreme Court is small. They select only a handful of the thousands of cases they have to chose from. On one hand I’m hoping it gets picked up because a win could potentially knock out our own state’s branded license requirement. On the other hand, sometimes the court picks a case because there is something in the lower court’s decision they feel compelled to correct. We certainly wouldn’t want that. Also, if they chose not to hear the case, the lower court’s decision stands, and that decision was a good one.
Whatever decision is made, we’ll be watching for it.
A win in SCOTUS might cause the states to tattoo your status on you prior to release from incarceration and/or probation. Think it is far fetched and could not happen? The Jews in Nazi Germany probably thought so too when they were then forced to carry identification card stamped with the word “Juden” on it and were later tattooed with an identifying number on their bodies. I’m sure that the states could even use the same arguments on why it is necessary to protect its citizens from the threat of the modern day “Judens”. Think it to be impossible for the states to do that? We have a sheriff here in FL that is arresting and harassing people base on a “Minority Report” type program that predicts what you might do in the future and has his deputies target you for arrest, not much of a jump from there.
Be thankful that registrants will never suffer the fate of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Unless you can persuade people that registrants and their families will be shipped off to be shot or gassed, the Nazi analogy is dumb. People see through it, and it causes them to lose sympathy for our cause. Even though I realize it’s tempting to vent and label our opponents as Nazis.
(Derek’s analogy is a bit milder than Sentinel’s, but still. Any repressive regime can mark someone as an enemy. That’s not what made Nazis, Nazis).
Agree 100%
The moment someone shouts “Nazi” that person loses the argument. It’s Godwin’s Law. Also, It’s usually by people who don’t understand European history very well.
FAC ….post this if you wish as I see you didn’t bother posting my last reply. I have been a member for some time and have read and commented on this forum for some time, however your not posting my reply simply because you disagree with the point I was making is classic left wing censorship and suppression and has no place in any forum. Notwithstanding personal attacks or threats you should not be deciding what comments should be posted and what is not, everyone’s voice needs to be heard not just the ones you agree with.
My comments are not the only voice I have observed you censor and for your actions I have decided to no longer post or monitor this forum. My membership in FAC, my participation in member events, and my monthly financial contribution will continue but I’m done with your personal editing of this forum.
We respect your opinion, but if your Nazi analogy offends other members, we’re not going to allow the argument to perpetuate.
The objective of this forum is not to offend others. If someone responds that the comment offends them and the commenter tries to double down on why it shouldn’t, we’re not going to allow it to move forward.
FAC – I don’t see where anyone has said “Your Nazi comment offends me.” Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I think the intent of those who oppose the argument is that it will not likely win our cause much external support. While that may be true, I think there is value if it helps us wake up those whose lives are potentially impacted by these ever-increasingly punitive measures. If the Nazi comparison fits, however unsettling it may be, it may be what we need to help every registrant realize the seriousness of the situation.
Because they were deleted
JC, I think you are out of touch with the end goal of those who hate registrants. All you have to do is look at any public forum on the issue (e.g. comments on Sheriff Grady Judd’s recent sting press brief) and you will see a plethora of public support for our banishment or extinction. If you claim we lose the “Nazi” argument, it is because you are probably talking to the wrong people – the very ones that agree with the Nazi way of dealing with undesirables.
I urge you to read the following and see just how far down the path toward their end goal we have already traveled. I can think of anti-registrant parallels to most of the laws they enacted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_pre-war_Nazi_Germany
Examples:
-Branded Passports
– Removal of professional licenses
– Removal from government service
– Removal of registrant minors from public schools
– Cannot serve in the military
– Cannot teach in public schools
– Cannot change your name
– Cannot own a firearm
– Banned from health spas (YMCA or similar)
– Suspension of business licenses
– Seizure of property and assets (via civil court actions)
– forced medical procedures (chemical castration)
– Removal from involvement in any of the facets of culture (internet and social media restrictions, anti-presence laws that silence registrant voices in regard to public meetings, banned from churches and other culturally significant places where citizens interact)
– Forced removal from your home and restrictions on where you can live (through anti-registration policies pertaining to public housing, and widespread adoption of anti-registrant residency restrictions). The effect of residency restrictions results in our country going further by denying registrants even the basic security of housing. Homelessness is rampant in some jurisdictions, with many shelters not even open to registrants. Even more, registrant-friendly shelters, programs, and housing regularly come under legal, regulatory, and public attack.
Whiles the actions in the above list have not been levied against registrants in every city and state in America, there are those whose intent is that it be so. This is the reason why we daily strive for our rights.
Look JC, I get it… when a congresswoman uses the “Nazi” argument concerning mask mandates, it makes her look like an idiot. Our cause looks nothing like hers, however. If anyone as the right to use the comparison, we do.
Why are we butting heads on Nazis? I understand all sides but come on; all of us should be better than this and none of this does any good. We can agree to disagree and if members get offended; why not have a civil discussion. Jesus Christ we act like a bunch of babies this way.
The Nazi analogy undermines our cause. Good luck using it to persuade a lawmaker, a judge, a sympathetic neighbor, or even an outsider who is reading this forum. It makes them stop taking us seriously, and the reason it does so is because they know that it is a bad analogy.
Nazis pioneered industrial-scale mass killing of civilian families targeted for their birth. That’s what most people you deal with, will remember the Nazis for. Had the Nazis simply engaged in discrimination, banishment, and other punishments, they would barely be remembered as just another repressive regime.
Personally, I am not offended by the invoking of Naziism or any other bad analogy that undermines our cause.
Jacob,
I think you’re totally not hearing what I’m saying. My comment is not directed at those who put us in this position (all the people you mentioned). If they were truly concerned about our human rights, they wouldn’t have done what is already on the record.
Rather, I am simply helping registrants wake up to what is possible if we don’t take the struggle for our rights seriously.
There’s no question that this struggle is quite serious. Comparisons to Naziism, however, make us look unserious.
Oh, I also forgot mention the modern ‘tattoo’ that many registrants are forced to wear – the ankle monitor – which tracks their every movement 24/7/365.
The level of state containment, control, and tracking for registrants is unlike anything else done to any other group in history by its government, except one regime, which we won’t name because it might offend someone.
Dam Anonymous, i really never saw all the pain we go through written on paper. It is incredible, thanks for opening my eyes to how bad it really is. One would ask, how long can we do this?
The laws and restrictions registrants currently isn’t what happened in Germany; however what makes you think it’ll never happen here. We are already hated and banished based on lies and ignorance. If we can’t come together whether something is offensive or not we lose; which is exactly why Florida’s laws are this way is because people don’t stand up because they are afraid or offended.
None of those things distinguish Naziism. Summary mass execution of entire families, selected by birth, does. So if we claim that that’s what’s destined to happen to registrants’ families, we won’t be perceived as credible.
Jacob,
https://www.foxnews.com/us/sc-couple-who-killed-sex-offender-and-his-wife-act-out-at-sentencing-hearing
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vigilante-justice-ends-with-murder-of-alleged-sex-offender-say-cops/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/vigilante-james-fairbanks-who-killed-sex-offender-gets-40-70-years-in-prison/vi-AAMaj58
The vigilantes in these stories were imprisoned by the state. Yet it’s the state that some here accuse of Naziism for branding peoples’ drivers’ licenses. Which is it?
Neither, because when we brand everything bad that could happen to registrants as Naziism, it shows we don’t really understand what Naziism is. Potential allies pick up on such loose use of the term and get turned off by it.
Thankfully, vigilante murders such as these are about as common as murders of children kidnapped by strangers. I am grateful that we don’t make the same mistake as our opponents and draw broad conclusions from them.
Actually mass killings of ethnic groups aren’t unique to that regime. I clearly remember the Rwanda genocide, in which as many as 800,000 people were killed in 100 days. Their brutality was just as evil, IMO.
I think if we keep the blinders on to the precursors of these types of state sponsored or approved acts of violence, we may very well end up like the Jews and the Tutsis one day, if not literally in the near term, certainly functionally. It is an unfortunate reality that disfavored groups will always be oppressed, diminished, dis-empowered, and potentially eliminated under the right conditions.
Today, certain U.S. jurisdictions make forced, chronic homelessness an almost certainty for members of our group. People in those circumstances have little to no hope of a better future and are functionally non-persons from the point of view of society. People in these conditions have literally frozen to death, with little to no regard or empathy because they were ‘sex offenders’. This offends me as much as any act of a certain 1933-1945 Northern European regime, and I will not keep quiet.
Absolutely. Your last paragraph especially.
“People” who support laws that mandate homelessness are evil. It’s not “unintended consequences” or whatever other BS people like to use to excuse it. It is evil and it is intended consequences. Those “people” have no concern for public safety or protecting children overall, that is reserved just for their family, friends, whomever. Don’t underestimate the evilness of “people” who support the Registries.
The criminal regimes promote and encourage segregation, ostracism, and hate. They encourage murder. People Forced to Register and their family members have been murdered just because of the Registries. OF COURSE the criminal regimes are going to say they don’t support that and they will prosecute people who do it. They’ll even make a big show about it and try to pretend how moral they are. But don’t make any mistake and believe that they actually care about any of those people. They don’t care about the people who are murdered or the people who do it. It’s all part of their game. It all keeps their carceral businesses running. They love it.
What a nightmare the Rwandan genocide was. And what those two regimes had in common, as distinct from other regimes (except also for the ottomans), was organized summary mass killings of families targeted for their birth.
I think most people believe that that’s not where US registries are headed, so if we use an analogy that implies otherwise, then we risk losing the attention of potential allies. We’re still free to use it, but it’s often not a good idea. As you point out, registries already present enough problems, such as forced homelessness, that are worth fighting even if they do not approach the level of genocidal mass killing.
My only concern with a SCOTUS review is I don’t want the same idiotic logic pushed by certain folks that have argued these cases up to this point, namely, that is okay to make less conspicuous marks on these licenses. Well, the Nazis only need a single letter to get their point across.
The following states currently have some form of a mark on state ID/DLs: AL, AZ, DE, FL, KS, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, VA (only on CDLs for passenger transport vehicles), WV
That means Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, and South Carolina must have something in the works.
Nobody should have their license or passport branded in a free society. My hope is that the blanket restrictions on registrants and their families become obsolete. We don’t need sticking restrictions; we need and want freedom!!
Yep. Who wants to live in such a sh*thole country? Not me. And I want to individually identify anyone who thinks that is acceptable and force them out of my country.
Can this discussion about a certain historical stain on humanity be put to rest? I’m not offended; yet I’m annoyed that we continue to allow different views to divide us. Members disagree with each other, so why not move on and stop this damn bickering. If someone finds a comment dumb, don’t respond to it. Stop adding fuel to the fire and trying to have the last comment. In my eyes you make yourself look like a fool and that’s on you.
Nazism didn’t start out with mass executions. It started with the same rule, restrictions and regulations that sex offenders now have to abide by. We are currently at the forced “reeducation concentration camps” era. Charged with a crime we may commit in the future with no appeal.
The final solution didn’t come after that for several years…We are still pre final solution era.
We are not headed toward mass executions of registrants. Do people on here actually believe this?
Of course. There is no reason at all to believe that America will not continue to devolve. Personally, I think it is insane to think it won’t. Look at how the Registries started and devolved. And just take a casual look at the people who live in America and how they act. It’s stunning really.
I remember when the criminal regime where I live first passed its “residency restrictions” “law”. I couldn’t believe such a thing could pass in America! The criminal regime is telling people who completed probation/parole sentences years ago where they may live?! Couldn’t believe it.
A single law enforcement criminal came to my family home very late one night and told me that I must move. There was a swimming pool that was “too close”. GD morons. I told him, “you can shove it up your ass” and more. He left while I was still telling him what he could do to himself.
I did not move. I don’t live there any longer but I still own that home.
‘One regime, which we won’t name because it might offend someone.’ I assure you, Anonymous, no one is offended by your own ignorance.
I am replying to a new post below for which the Reply button was disabled.
‘Nazis were known as the regime that…tracked convicts’ locations!’ Um no that’s not it.
I’m not trying to keep the Nazi discussion alive, FAC. But if someone posts a dumb Nazi analogy and it is public, I will answer. Why display our ignorance on this platform for the public to see?
(Ok I know I am being a little acerbic here).
Wonder if registrants along the gulf coast of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi will be allowed to stay in shelters as Tropical Storm Ida approaches. My money is on they’ll be denied all because of the registry. Yup not punishment, inhuman or offensive to them and their families.
Out of all the people who think PFRs should be excluded from storm shelters, what percentage of them do you think actually believe that improves the safety there? I’d really love to just know the reality of that. I’m not sure a survey could get the reality. For example, I think a LOT of people would say that they support exclusions and also say that it was for safety, but the real reason would be something else. They might not even know it. And MOST people living in America can’t take 2 minutes to do any deep thought about anything before they think they are an expert and have an opinion. So a survey alone probably wouldn’t be enough.
Personally, I think a person would have to be just really, really dumb to actually believe that excluding any group of people would change the safety situation in any predictable, useful way. I can’t imagine I’d ever go to such a shelter but if I did, I wouldn’t be trusting anyone there. Even if they excluded all the awful PFRs that would be trying to sex me and my family.
When I see a person talking about excluding PFRs it feels all cringey and I feel disgusted and embarrassed for the person. I’m thinking the person is either shockingly stupid or just evil. No matter what they sound like, I hear a low-I.Q. monkey talking in a “redneck” voice.
Can we stop with swatting of the hornet’s nest regarding certain topics that some find offensive? I’m not offended by I’m getting annoyed with people stirring the pot just to create division. If you want me to name names I will, Enough already!!
Once someone commits a sexual crime, PARTICULARLY AGAINST A PRETEEN CHILD, society believes such a person should forfeit all human and constitutional rights and be put to death in the most agonizingly slow method humanly possible. Anything short of this horrible end is justice denied in the eyes of far too many.
I truly believe even judges let their hate influence their rulings. Look at the recent 7th Circuit ruling where the court overturned itself en banc. How is it that the justice who wrote the dissent when the panel gave registrants a victory was allowed to write the majority opinion that pulled that victory and turned it into a defeat?
WILL ALLEN..
I truly believe with every fiber of my being that judges know full well the registry is cruel and punitive by design and intent.
How many registrants have been MURDERED because of the unfettered public access to the registry? Then look at the despicable ruling the 10th Circuit issued after one brave, honest judge hit the nail on the head and pointed out that the cruel and unusual punishment of the registry comes from the fact it is public and that the public is willing and fully capable of using the information to mete out vigilante violence. The 10th Circuit basically said, “Yeah, it feels just like punishment, but it isn’t”
Look at how the 7th Circuit just reversed itself in an en banc re-hearing where PFRs won a great victory regarding being treated differently than registrants who haven’t moved and came back…
I can’t recall the case citation, but I remember a glaring statement a judge made. It went to the effect of “This court has no interest in eviscerating the registry.” How much more plain can it be said? That statement told me there were grounds that judge could have done exactly that, but he or she chose not to.