Great Decision: Butts County Sheriff’s Halloween Signs Violate the First Amendment.
A great decision just out from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (FLORIDA’S CIRCUIT 🙂 ). The signs Butts County (Georgia) Sheriff posted in front of registrant’s homes right before Halloween are compelled speech and violate the First Amendment.
This is a great decision, for multiple reasons. First, it’s in our circuit, so it’s binding precedent. Second, many municipalities in Florida have similar ordinances, which are now ripe for challenge. And Third, because it raises a viable argument against other forms of compelled speech all Florida registrants are subject to, such as branded driver’s license.
You can read the decision here: Butts County Order 11th Circuit
Here is another thought. They SCOTUS ruled that the several states cannot keep registrants off of the internet. But the Florida make it difficult for us by collecting our “internet identifiers” AND perhaps most critically, makes that information easily and really automatically available to the social media companies, who then use said info to ban us from their sites. Now the state will argue that they are doing anything, but they only do this for Facebook, Instagram, etc. MY understanding is that if the people who are actually supposed to be protected, the children and their parents want to utilize this “service, they have to ask if a specific e mail or chat identifier is associated with a registrant. What this new case might do is establish a rule that says that the government can’t be cutesy and try to do end runs around out rights. Why would you even provide this “service” to the social media companies if the objective was not to keep us off of those sites? They don’t post it on the FDLE page for each offender, do they? The Butts County Sheriff tried to argue that this was not some kind of compelled speech, etc. becasue the department put up the sings typically on public easements, right? Cutesy didn’t fly with the 11th in this case. Let’s see how far WE can take it for once.
Only one of the three plaintiffs won. Only applied to owners of the residences, and not the ones who only lived at the residences. Also, if Sherriff can proof legal easement of placement of signs, they will be allowed.
That part did confuse me. I would think the plaintiffs would be able to easily provide proof of tenancy. Anyone have insight into this?
By the logic of this argument and it’s final judgment, the sex offender registry itself is also “compelled speech”. People can easily be looked up just by typing in a name, any name into Google. If the person has no criminal records, no such results will be found. If the person does, then you’ll get results of court records of the offense. We don’t need a registry. That should be the next lawsuit argument regarding compelled speech.
If not the registry itself based on this decision, postcard mailers disseminated to identify where registrant’s reside would certainly seem government overreach.
That’s an interesting take on things. The differentiation between being on social media and being forced onto government sites is definitely different. I wonder if that tact is one that would have some traction with the courts….
Awesome! The fact it came from one of the most conservative circuits truly helps as well.
Derek
I have said in many posts, if we could find a judge who ruled not based on politics, but on reality of the law and fairness, we could get some wins. Tired of judges who are afraid of not being re-elected or losing friends in high places.
PS: Always a pleasure and an honor to see you pop in and comment once in awhile.
Even though I do not trick or treat, nor did I ever have to place a sign in my yard, I am super excited for three reasons.
#1 I have joy for those poor souls who had to endure the “Scarlet letter” in their yard.
#2 And for your post stating what I had hoped, that other branding could be challenged due to this ruling.
#3 And last but for sure not least, you stated it was in our court coverage zone, so it opens up cans of worms law enforcement is going to lose their minds over.
Finally some freaking good news. Praise God first and Blessings to the judge / judges that actually had a heart or at least a conscience.
The good book says:
Galatians 6:9
“Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”
Don’t we have a similar argument pending in the 11th Circuit and a federal district court in Florida regarding compelled speech via our DLs and the stamp of the SO statute or Sexual Predator designations? If so, it seems this decision very favorable and gives us some insight into what may lie ahead for us.
We do not, you are thinking of Doe v. Marshall that came out of Alabama. There is definitely some strong precedent in this circuit when it comes to first amendment.
FAC
When I signed into my email today and I had over 30 emails from the site, I knew something really big had happened either good or bad.
So, not part of the ex post facto plus challenge?