Prevarication Du Jour

NQ201601212145ZNo, I don’t hate the First Amendment. I believe that prior restraint on publication generally is prohibited by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. See New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), also known as The Pentagon Papers Case.

However, I do believe that it is possible for someone to do something that can result in the loss of some or almost all of his rights. For example, a felony conviction will put an end to a person’s Second Amendment right to own a modern firearm. A jail sentence ends someone’s right to travel as he pleases. Thus, it may be that a finding by a court that one has used his speech to violate the rights of another can cause a loss of some of the violator’s First Amendment rights. IANAL, and I haven’t read much case law in the area, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the Illinois stalking no contact order law is valid.

54 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour

  1. I’m sure Bill is the model of consistency. Where is his defense of Aaron when the latter was under a similar restraining order?

    Besides, wouldn’t the first defense be “I didn’t do it”, not “I did it but it’s unconstitutional”?

    On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:58 PM, hogewash wrote:

    > wjjhoge posted: “No, I don’t hate the First Amendment. I believe that > prior restraint on publication generally is prohibited by the First > Amendment, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. See New York Times v. > United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), also known as The Pentagon ” >

    • Oh, if I remember correctly, Bill’s “defense” of Aaron’s rights was to try and goad him into violating the order, hence running the risk of being arrested. Somehow I don’t think that neither Bill’s actions then nor Hoge’s and the horde’s reactions now are in anyway comparable simply because the situations are based off different issues.

      But I will say that lines of equivocation can be drawn to some parts of these two situations.

      For instance, willfully baiting someone to do something that will get them in trouble with that purpose in mind (Bill’s antics) versus advising them that they will be in possible jeopardy if they do something (Hoge/horde actions) certainly gives an, um, INTERESTING juxtaposition between the two.

      • Well, Stinky claims to stand behind everything he’s ever written and to have everything he has written so maybe that will be his next blog post. You know, proving he’s not completely a liar, just mostly one.

        I would rather that than another actionable piece of libel like what he has already published.

  2. Who wants to guess what Blob’s opinion was of The Diddler’s (later overturned on appeal) restraining order barring Aaron Walker from writing about him?

  3. Well… Thurston Howell the III beat me to the punch. Uh… I didn’t get involved in the story until the summer/fall of 2012 and I was quite clear that I thought it was unconstitutional to tell someone that he couldn’t talk about someone. Mr. Inconsistent here is HOGE!

    • I see that the Cabin Boy™ has been poking through the archives here for information about Judge Vaughey and the infamous gag order against Aaron Walker. There are, of course, several differences between the cases. First, Judge Vaughey ruled that he didn’t have to follow the Brandeburg v. Ohio Supreme Court precedent and find that there was evidence that Aaron Walker had made actual threats. Second, he imposed a penalty that was not authorized by the peace order statute.

      In the case of the Grady no contact stalking order, it appears that the court did make the proper evidentiary finding and that the penalty is authorized by law.

    • Why don’t you give us a link to you expressing that position, Blob? You stand by everything you’ve written, right?

  4. Bill is free to make this argument to the court, like Aaron had to.

  5. Also, the Diddler is a public figure, by several standards of the term. What he lacks in literal stature, he far more than makes up for in figurative stature.

  6. So is this tripling down on stupid, or higher? I’ve lost count.

    Just since the start of the Threeper Caper, I mean…

  7. Judges do unconstitutional stuff all the time. That’s part of the reason why we have appeals courts. The interesting thing about this particular Order is that a certain potato would have to risk jail time to find out whether it will hold up.

  8. Posted in the thread prior to this one- this should answer your question, John.

    To the extent someone might be concerned that an Illinois Stalking Protective order might violate the first amendment, he or she might want to read this case:

    Pertinent section:

    ¶ 19 First Amendment

    ¶ 20 Wilson’s final constitutional objection to the Act is that it violates his constitutional right to freedom of speech. We disagree. The Act narrowly restricts only the act of stalking, i.e., following, monitoring, observing, surveilling, or interfering with a person, and does not seek to regulate speech. Further, we note that the only speech that is prohibited by the Act are threats of violence or intimidation, which are not constitutionally protected in any event. See Bailey, 167 Ill.2d at 226–28. Moreover, as we have previously noted, the Act specifically exempts from prohibition any lawful “exercise of the right of free speech or assembly.” 740 ILCS 21/10 (West 2010). Clearly, Wilson’s first amendment argument lacks merit.

    Plus, I don’t know how long the period is in Illinois during which one can appeal a court order, but I know it’s not more than a month or so. Enforcement of the Illinois order after the appeal period is over is purely a law enforcement matter.

  9. Fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, Bill. Ask the ACLU to represent you — I’m sure this is totally uncharted case law.

  10. Of course, by Bill asking the question, he’s (1) proved that he does understand the law regarding the IL restraining order and (2) he’s ignoring it and talking about and (indirectly) to Grady anyway.

    Well done laddie.

    By the end of the nite he’ll be confessing to the Kennedy assassination and the Lindbergh kidnapping

    • Actually, by repeatedly claiming Grady is Krendler, and then repeatedly @mentioning and directly tweeting to Krendler, Stink is already talking “to” Grady..
      So yet again his claim that he hasn’t “said a word” to Grady is but another lie according to his own documented words.

    • It’s Bill.

      If there were video of him shooting Kennedy, he’d be claiming he was within his rights as an investigator, and how dare you say anything in public about him and you’re obsessed. Also, what is Hoge’s problem?

      • DF would claim he was “showing” a bullet to the President and demanding that he confirm or deny whether it was an actual bullet and whether or not it could be potentially lethal.

  11. No pastor is going to based upon a phone call – depart any information to someone especially a filthy perverted idiot scumbag child porn audio creator.

    In any perverted anal obsessed fantasy inhibited creep, the need to try to win by lying is a sad pathetic trait, sometimes attributed to those who are ashamed secretly about their accomplishments in life

    Saw this on a cop show once

    • Hm.

      Not quite the same, but I could tell you a story about someone doing a counselling course who was harassing someone in that person’s spare time. At one point, the origional target went to talk to the school and suggest that it’s probably not a good idea to teach someone that stuff, when this is the way they’re behaving away from school.

      They then took the harasser aside and told her they’d support her (she made more claims but I don’t count those as credible). Guess they wanted the fees more than they valued their reputation I guess.

      People can do very dumb things when they can’t see the whole picture.

  12. Gee, maybe someone should give the ninjanuns a call and see what their opinion of what Billy Boy’s been up to today is?

    nah, we aren’t idiots like Stinky.
    I”m sure LE will take care of that.

  13. I read Dave Edgren’s case and thank him for the citation. It does not, however, appear ro me to be on point. The specific behavior covered in that case is far removed from a blanket prohibition on writing about someone.

    I suspect that if someone was willing to fight the Attorney General of Illinois up to at least the Illinois Supreme Court, such a prohibition would eventually be found to violate the First Amendment. Bad laws can sit around for a long time before someone has the time, resources, and incentive to challenge their constitutionality. If any of you has ever been involved in a case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of a statute (as I was), it takes many years and buckets of money: the lawyers in the Solicitor General’s office are good and they have no incentive to minimize time or expense. (We won by the way 7-2 after 8 years and over three million in legal bills: court of claims, federal circuit, then federal circuit en banc, then certiorari, and then the Supremes.)

    Of course, all that is moot with respect to Willie because he did not contest or appeal the order and so never even raised the constitutional issue.

    I obviously agree with John Hoge that an individual’s behavior may rightly result in curtailment of his rights, but all the first amendment cases I have read have tended to view prior restraint with great suspicion.

    Finally, it is not hypocritical or inconsistent to believe (1) that the Illinois statute should be held unconstitutional, and (2) that Willie is not free to violate an order that he did not challenge when he had the chance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s