04 July 2008
not that we care, but we cant help but wonder if our previous post violates this law.
anyway, hb726 now thanks to piyush "bobby" jindal, act no. 643 of the 2008 regular legislative session appears to be cut and pasted from parts of new york state so6499 a bill by long island, rethuglican dean g. skelos which was ultimately signed into law by governor paterson.
we found this interesting commentary written by a new york lawyer on 24 october 2007 about the new york law.
Compare and contrast this proposal to traditional hate crime laws: In the latter, the crime has happened, the intent is merely an escalator, a manifestation of the long-standing and totally innocuous premise that there can be reasonable bases for punishing a crime differently under different circumstances.hb726/act643 is more evidence that the entire louisiana legislature (and the governor) cannot be trusted at all. as this bill and the house and senate voting records that support it show -- not one louisiana legislator has any integrity and honor whatsoever. not one legislator voted against bad legislation and these idiots have the audacity to think they deserve (much less pass) a pay raise? for what? they do not deserve to be paid anything. not one red cent. they do not deserve any respect either.
But with a noose law (or a swastika law or any comparable proscription), the crime has not happened — there has been no assault, no battery, no homicide, no destruction of property. There is merely expressive conduct. Revolting expressive conduct, no doubt, but expressive conduct nonetheless. Here is where the line is crossed. Here is where the government is now "punishing thought." And here, therefore, is where the First Amendment must stand athwart.
The law is unambiguous: offensive expressive conduct is fully protected under the First Amendment unless it creates a danger of "imminent lawlessness" (i.e., directly incites a crime). Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Merely displaying a noose (or, more absurdly, drawing a noose) cannot, even under the most contrived fact pattern, foment imminent lawlessness.
Of course, a noose display can easily reflect another (bona fide) crime — such as trespass, vandalism or battery. Just as one does not need a flag desecration amendment to protect one's own flag — property laws accomplish that with no affront to the Constitution — one also does not need to criminalize noose displays to protect one's own property or bodily or emotional integrity. ~ read more
we still think that what is needed is a law that says that any time a bill or act is ultimately declared unconstitutional then that bills sponsor, coauthor(s) together with every legislator who voted for it should be automatically removed from office and whether they are still in office at the time its declared unconstitutional or not, be cast with the legal fees in litigating offensive, unconstitutional legislation.
Section 1. R.S. 14:40.5 is hereby enacted to read as follows: