We read:
"A New York street vendor has been arrested once again for selling condoms in wrappers bearing the image of President Barack Obama.
Jose Andujar, 43, was arrested on Friday in Times Square for selling his "Obama" condoms. It was his third arrest in a year for unlicensed peddling, police said, reported the New York Post.
The arrest came despite a State Supreme Court justice ruling that Andujar's condoms are protected by the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. The decision said the condom wrappers should be treated like books, which do not require a vending license.
The city vowed to continue to bust Andujar, pending the outcome of an appeal.
Andujar typically titillates tourists with his slick sales pitch, "It's the ultimate stimulus package for hard times."
Source
They would seem to be setting themselves up for a substantial damages award
11 comments:
so condom wrappers = literature !?
who cares about damages to be paid? They just increase taxes or fines. It's not as if those "police officers" and their political masters/cronies have to pay it out of their own pockets, they're free to harass and oppress the population as the population will foot the bill for any lawsuit filed against their oppressors.
Reality Check For JWenting:
"Police Officers (must) enforce the laws made by the corrupt liars in Albany and NYC." As for those corrupt elected liars not caring about settlements, you're 100% right. They couldn't care less how they waste the taxpayers money.
BTW, this isn't the first time the communists and socialists who run NYC have ignored a court ruling in favor of their leftist agenda. In fact, it happens here quite often.
so condom wrappers = literature !?
If a crucifix in a jar of urine is "art" then YES!
How is this a free-speech issue? Most cities have laws requiring anybody conducting business to have a business license. That inculdes door-to-door magazine sales. Magazines are far closer to books than condom wrappers. So, I don't get how this is oppression of his first amendment right. Now, if he has the proper license and the powers that be just don't like the use of Obambi's pic, THAT would be a problem.
It does seem that they are setting themselves up for personal liability. I do not believe that sovereign immunity protects those agents that willfully and with full knowledge violate the rights of a citizen. The court has given its ruling and the state must abide by that ruling until it is over turned, not ignore it while it is on appeal. I’m sure that there are quite a few young or even experienced lawyers that would love to fleece the pockets of overpaid government officials and departments, and probably take only a percentage of the winnings.
Their scheme sounds enormously easy and lucrative, does it not?
1. You need only one low-level admin person or cop, plus one willing accomplice.
2. The low-level admin person or cop then deliberately violates the civil rights of the accomplice, and does so in an obvious and aggravating fashion. To avoid liability, they need only find an ambiguous directive, or even just official silence re their conduct. And besides, their union will back them up no matter what.
3. The accomplice sues; victory is almost certainly assured.
4. The damages (or pre-trial settlement) are then split between the participants.
How is this a free-speech issue?
Because the state of New York said it is.
Here's the back story.....
In 2007, Andujar wrote the New York Department of Consumer Affairs asking what was required if he wanted to sell something in Times Square. They responded by basically saying that anything with a printed political message on it does not need a license for the vendor. They also cited the New York statute they relied upon.
Andujar has the letter from the DCA and used it in his appeal to the NY Supreme Court.
When Andujar appealed the arrest, the state failed to challenge that the messages were not political in nature as argued by Andujar. The state basically "defaulted" to Andujar's point that the printed message on the condom packs are political satire.
Andujar makes the point that the messages are close enough to the slogans of Obama, as well as commentaries on McCain and Palin. The state never challenged that either.
So what you have is the state first telling Andujar that he did not need a license for printed political messages and then agreeing with Andujar in court that the messages were political messages.
Game over.
Andujar wins.
Whoop-dee-doo
I'm with Anon. 6:26.
An appeal does not operate as a stay and UNTIL the appeal is successful the City is bound by the original decision.
To ignore it is not only a breach of civil rights but a clear contempt of court.
Theres too many worms in the big apples rotten core
Post a Comment