1st Amendment

SD AG Jackboots has a very skewed view of the First Amendment

l3wis October 7, 2010 11Comments

AG Marty Jackboots once again proves he has a neo-conservative agenda when it comes to law and the constitution;

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that speech can be restricted but not barred, Attorney General Marty Jackley said, and he thinks the law passes that test.

“You can’t regulate it out of existence, but you can regulate time and place,” Jackley said.

Well isn’t that regulating it out of existence? This isn’t about dildos and naughty underware, this is about our First Amendment rights. Neo-Cons, like Jackboots, don’t like speech rights because someone might do or say something that offends his beliefs. It isn’t your job as AG to worry about your personal political beliefs, your job is to defend the US Constitution, and sometimes that means defending some really sticky issues. Marty needs to spend some time with Chris Nelson, who put his personal beliefs aside when going after Roger Hunt. Because it wasn’t about abortion, it was about money laundering and breaking campaign finance laws.

Marty scares me more everyday, and like I have said before, if IM13 passes – watch his office. I have a feeling he will do everything in his power to stop the implementation of the measure.

This isn’t the first time Todd Epp has taken a swipe at the First Amendment

l3wis February 11, 2010 1Comments

Back in 2001 Todd was willing to defend the Brookings Arts Council as a board member of the SD Arts Council. Joy Crane ultimately got Todd to resign on the board because of the extreme conflict of interest that would have existed defending the BAC against someone he is supposed to be representing, a member of the Arts Council, Crane herself. That, and his blatant disregard for the First Amendment. Joy won her battle, I guess the BAC got a little nervous when they started getting letters from anti-censorship lawyers in New York and the ACLU.

As we insisted in our letter to Ms. Knutzen (jointly signed by NCAC, David Green of the First Amendment Project and Jennifer Ring of the ACLU of the Dakotas), randomly applying the vague and subjective standard of appropriateness to work that clearly constitutes protected speech raises serious constitutional concerns. The viewpoint expressed in “Chastity Belt” might well be unpopular and potentially controversial for Brookings, SD. But it is precisely to protect speech that is controversial or even offensive that the First Amendment exists. And, as the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed: “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 1989)