Mayor Thomas M. Menino is cracking down on the Hub’s hard-core hoodlums and even the taunting “Stop Snitchin’ ” T-shirts they wear . . . .Menino vowed to combat the soaring crime rate. Among the steps: Sending city Inspectional Services Division officials to seize T-shirts emblazoned with the “Stop Snitchin’ ” message.
“It’s wrong,” Menino said. “We are going into every retail store that sells the shirts and remove them.”
The Herald reported the shirts were worn by the mother of a reputed gang member earlier this year during his trial for a shooting that killed 10-year-old Trina Persad.
The mayor did not say what legal authority ISD would cite in seizing the shirts from retailers. . . .
The T-shirts -- which sometimes bear a logo with an octagonal stop sign riddled with bullets -- have surfaced in Boston and cities across the nation including Baltimore and Pittsburg. Officials say the shirts are intended to intimidate witnesses to crime. Store owners say the shirts are a harmless novelty. . . .
Under certain circumstances, wearing a "Stop Snitchin" T-shirt may be intended to threaten certain people with violence, and may be likely to convey such a message; such action may properly be punished (given a properly worded statute), given the threat exception to the First Amendment. Also, court authorities may bar such shirts from being worn in courtrooms, which are not public fora, and which the government as landlord may impose substantial speech restrictions.
But the government may not ban the sale of such T-shirts -- which can of course be used to send nonthreatening (even if repugnant) messages, such as messages of solidarity with thugs, messages that thug culture is cool, or messages that reporting crimes to the police is wrong -- just because of the possibility that the T-shirts may be used to send unprotected threats. And the government certainly may not just seize the shirts without some such legal ban in place (as the ACLU points out, such a seizure would violate the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause as well as the First Amendment). Just as cross-burning is constitutionally protected, unless it's done with the intent to intimidate (and seems likely to achieve this result), so is the sale and wearing of the T-shirts.
Thanks to reader Rich Carreiro for the pointer.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Reverse Mussolini Fallacy, Again:
- Mayor Vows To Go Into Stores To Seize T-Shirts:
Well, I suppose there's always the Fifth Amendment. . . . Could get expensive, though!
And based on people wearing the shirts to criminal trials, perhaps the mayor will argue that the shirts only purpose is the commission of a crime (intimidating a witness or maybe OOB).
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; [context omitted], or may be sentenced to death.
Actually getting this enforced is another matter. But it can be used as a way of calling attention to the seriousness of the offical conduct you are complaining about.
It'd be self-defeating for the citizenry of Boston to get sucked into a noisy debate about this gesture. Because, win or lose, such behaviour would perfectly serve the mayor's purpose in distracting people from the real problem.
I'd say it's a good rule of thumb, whenever a politician makes a bold and controversial (not to mention pointless) gesture like this to ask yourself the very same question you'd ask watching a stage magician makes some dramatic hand gesture: from what is he trying to draw my attention? Pay attention to the man behind the curtain!
Nice try. But Menino just got reelected and this is one of the first things that he got involved in after the elections. It makes no sense if it were political. Mayor Mumbles has always had dictatorial tendencies, although, unlike Giuliani, he does not admire Mussolini.
If anything, it's a safe move by Menino, because he will not be tested in elections for awhile. If he's making any point at all, it is one of personal power.
I think of drug laws as a freedom-lover myself. Dont forget what "war" causes these things.
This one mentions some of the mayor's plans to deal with the situation. Hiring more police is not discussed.
The T-shirt confiscation is one of several measures attributed to Menino. It's possible that the Herald highlights it out of sensationalism or to make the mayor look bad. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Splunge's assessment of Menino's motives. Pace Abdul, I suspect that if the authorities were properly doing the difficult or unpopular parts of their jobs, the provocative T-shirts would be irrelevant.
Gee, you'd almost think the folks who wrote the Bill of Rights envisioned this kind of situation... ;-)
How do you reconcile that statement with the Supreme Court's "Fuck the Draft" decision in the context of this T-shirt dispute?
See the L.A. Times: Snagging a Rogue Snitch, which I discuss here.
Some of the judicial contempt cases involving free speech interests (the Harry Bridges cases, Pennekamp and so on) probably give some guidnce here. An intent to corrupt justice might be necessary for a contempt conviction, but perhaps not for action preventing wearing such a message as Stop Snitchin in the vicinity of a courthouse where witnesses are likely to gather. Banning the shirt anywhere would not withstand the first amendment.
The only thing more abhorent to the first ammendment than supressing "bad" speech is supressing "good" speech because some people might interpret it badly.
If you go that far back, you will find that corporate personhood was not protected either. Is it really your desire to roll back the clock or is it simply an argument of convenience on a specific issue, as it usually is for Scalia?