|
|
| Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim (1900546) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 11 08:06:55 2022, in response to Re: thgir nevorp llennoccm hctim, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 11 00:37:11 2022. Perhaps yours is an oversimplication"Limits on Picketing The protesters may argue that they are exercising their First Amendment rights in a manner that falls short of harassment. The problem, however, is that federal law appears to prohibit their action. The "Picketing or Parading" law states that anyone "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty," cannot picket near a judge's residence. A conviction on this charge could come with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both. The distinction is important: This law doesn't speak to gatherings of people who protest a court's decision but focuses instead on gatherings that seek to influence a decision. And in this case, with a leaked draft that is not yet final, the appearance of attempted influence is clear. There is also precedent. In the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case Cox v. Louisiana, justices concluded that picketing outside courtrooms and judges' homes with the intent to influence decisions "infringes a substantial state interest in protecting the judicial process." The majority opinion insisted that "mob law is the very antithesis of due process." Legal experts are weighing in and concluding that the law appears to be clear. "The statute would seem to apply both because they appear to be picketing and parading with the relevant intent and at the relevant locations," said Tabatha Abu El-Haj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel University's Law School." |
|
|
|