Swastikas illegal?
We read:
"A Stevensville man who painted swastikas alongside a senator's name on his own car can continue with his federal lawsuit against the deputy sheriff who had his car tagged and towed, a federal judge has ruled. Charles E. "Pete" Richter raises a sufficient First Amendment claim to proceed with his suit against Queen Anne's County Deputy Sheriff J. Beatty, Judge Andre M. Davis ruled last week in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.
"Here, Beatty ticketed Richter's car as ostensibly abandoned and put a repair order on the car the same day that Richter parked it, legally, on a public street, as an act of political protest," Davis wrote. Such an action would likely chill "car speech" by "people of ordinary firmness," the judge said.
According to Richter's lawsuit, he parked his car in a public parking lot on Pier One Road, near Route 8, on Oct. 8, 2004. The spot, within eyeshot of the William Preston Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge - more commonly called the Chesapeake Bay Bridge - was often used by state Sen. E.J. Pipkin during his campaign to unseat U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski, Richter alleged. The car was tagged the same day and towed two days later. It was crushed months later after Richter refused to claim it from the impound lot.
As a political statement against Maryland politician E. J. Pikpkin's run for national office, Charles Richter painted a swastika on his car next to the words "Vote Pipken" and parked it legally on a public street. The same day it was parked, a sheriff's deputy ticketed the car as abandoned. Two days later, the car was towed from the same spot. When Richter refused to pay the impound lot to get his car back, it was crushed. Richter has brought suit against the deputy, and a federal judge has just ruled that the lawsuit can go forward.
Richter, explaining another swastika-adorned vehicle that was also a protest against Pipken, wrote in one forum, "Painted on my Van was... The American Indian Peace sign which happens to be the Swastika printed back wards." The decorative swastika, also used by Native Americans, is literally thousands of years old, has positive meanings, and is still used in certain Eastern cultures. It is often depicted in mirror image to the Nazi swastika, but it can be drawn with its arms going either way, right or left. The Nazi swastika is only rendered one way, with its arms to the right. We don't know if the van swastika was different than the car swastika, but the one on the car matches the Nazi swastika, and, of course, the Native American swastika, as well.
The lawsuit verdict is evidently based on the weight of free speech and political objection. According to the judge, Richter has First Amendment rights during "an act of political protest." The deputy sheriff who ticketed the car, parked legally on public property, violated those rights. It could also be taken into account, however, that E. J. Pipken is Jewish, which would open the door to considerations of hate speech. We don't know if the judge had anything to say on that issue, but for now, the case can proceed.
Source
9 comments:
I'm sure the very convenient hate speech argument will be used against this man who's First Amendment rights were clearly violated. I hope his lawyer has the brains to demand a clear definition of hate speech in court.
This guy might just be allowed to paint a swastika on anything and get away with it, just because he is Jewish. After all we are all taught that a Black person can use the “N” word and because they are black, it isn’t a crime. So if a black person can say the “N” word, shouldn’t a Jewish person be allowed to paint a Swastika on their own personal property?
The other Mobius.
Should have used the Hammer & Cycle.
No problem with that particular logo;
Even though Stalin [Commie Russian] killed 6 times as many innocent people than Hitler [Nazi German] the H&C symbol is the hallmark of the Liberal-Socialists/Communists world-wide, including the U.S.A.
Gee, do you think that a beat up old car that is parked on the side of a road that is basically used by commuters for parking and not be touched for three days MIGHT be considered "abandoned?"
This is one of those guys who wanted to "make a statement" and in doing so, makes the statement that he is a petulant, whiney little buttwipe.
He MAKES his car look abandoned and when the cops are overzealous by 2 days, they tow the car. He goes to get it back and unlike every other citizen, decides that he doesn't have to pay the impound fees and fight them later. He abandons the car at the impound lot and they later crush it. Legally.
There is a first amendment issue here that perhaps played a roll in the cop initially flagging the car as abandoned.
However, I would love to know what the "repair violation" given was for. If it was something that made the car illegal or undrivable on the street, that changes the aplicable statute and the cops were well within the letter and spirit of the law to tow this thing.
And to the "other Mobius," Richter isn't Jewish, the person he targeted with the "protest" is.
"Even though Stalin [Commie Russian] killed 6 times as many innocent people than Hitler [Nazi German] the H&C symbol is the hallmark of the Liberal-Socialists/Communists world-wide, including the U.S.A."
Most of whom are jews!
The symbol on the car is clearly protected political speech. As for the action by the police, so long as the car was "legally" parked, (it was) and had not been reported stolen, (it was not) and did not pose any danger to the public, (it did not) the police had no legal right to tow it, or disturb it in any way. You can bet the city will be buying this guy a new car!
You can bet the city will be buying this guy a new car!
That part of the claim has been dismissed by the judge. Richter claimed that he was denied due process and his car was crushed as a result. The judge found that Richter was notified that his car was ticketed and was about to be towed. When he went to get the car back, he had a chance to pay and fight the fine later, or go get a traffic court injuntion to stop the legal crushing, or inform the sherrif that he was initiating a claim. He did nothing.
Richter let his car be crushed by doing nothing. He cannot claim that he was denied due process when he did not avail himself of the process.
That doesn't change the fact that the police had no legal right to tow the car in the first place. What was done here by the authorities is pretty obvious and i'm sure a higher court will see that also.
That doesn't change the fact that the police had no legal right to tow the car in the first place.
No one said it did. But Richter is claiming that the tow resulted in the destruction of his car. It did not. He chose not to avail himself of the process he says he was denied.
What was done here by the authorities is pretty obvious and i'm sure a higher court will see that also.
It was so obvious that a lower court had dismissed the csae. The appeal was to a circuit court. This case is simply being returned to a jury where I suspect, given the actions of Richter in other areas, will find that his freedom of expression was violated and give him a dollar.
Even that amount is too much for this clown.
Post a Comment