PDA

View Full Version : Georgia sheriff violated sex offenders’ rights with Halloween warning signs



Teh One Who Knocks
01-21-2022, 12:14 PM
By Joshua Rhett Miller - New York Post


https://i.imgur.com/dZbTkajl.jpg

A Georgia sheriff violated the constitutional rights of sex offenders by placing signs in their yards warning trick-or-treaters to stay away on Halloween, a federal appeals court ruled.

Butts County Sheriff Gary Long instructed deputies ahead of Halloween in 2018 to put the large signs in the front yards of all 57 registered sex offenders in the county, telling youngsters to “stop” and not to “trick-or-treat at this address.”

Three registered sex offenders in the county later filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the signs violated their First Amendment rights. A judge initially blocked Long from posting the signs, but denied a permanent injunction and granted summary judgment in favor of Long.

A three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed Judge Marc Treadwell’s decision in an opinion issued Wednesday, ruling the oversize signs are “compelled government speech” and violate a homeowner’s First Amendment rights.

https://i.imgur.com/cr2Whgm.png

“Thus, we vacate the district court’s judgment in favor of the sheriff and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” Judge Frank Hull wrote.

The judges noted that none of the three sex offenders who sued — Reginald Holden, Corey McClendon and Christopher Reed — have been classified as posing an increased risk of recidivism. Treadwell also found that they had been “rehabilitated” and were leading productive lives.

“The sheriff does not dispute this, nor does the record support a contrary finding,” Wednesday’s ruling reads.

https://i.imgur.com/fP8sTVc.png

After the warning signs were first put up, Long posted a message on Facebook saying the signs were only put in the yards of registered sex offenders while saying the safety of the county’s children was his top priority. He also said Georgia law prohibits registered sex offenders from partaking in Halloween, which the appeals court noted was inaccurate.

The ruling also noted that Long acknowledged he’s had no issues with registered sex offenders in his county, including unauthorized contact with minors, since becoming sheriff in 2013.

Holden, McClendon and Reed sued Long in 2019, claiming he had violated their First Amendment rights with compelled speech. The district court granted a preliminary injunction based on the speech claim and barred Long from putting up the signs that October.

The ruling indicates the sign “impermissibly burdens” Holden, and that Long is prevented by the First Amendment from posting it on his property.

The appeals judges reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of Long on Holden’s First Amendment claim and permanently blocked the sheriff from posting signs in his yard. Holden owns his home, the judges noted.

But “issues remain” regarding McClendon and Reed, who both live with their parents, and have expressed their intent to amend their complaints to add them as plaintiffs, according to Wednesday’s ruling.

“At this stage, neither McClendon, Reed, nor the sheriff have shown they are entitled to summary judgment,” the ruling read. “Thus, we vacate the entry of judgment for the sheriff on McClendon’s and Reed’s First Amendment claims and remand for further proceedings.”

DemonGeminiX
01-21-2022, 12:18 PM
Fuck you idiots. That sheriff's not Congress. And protecting kids from known sexual predators is not a First Amendment issue.

Teh One Who Knocks
01-21-2022, 12:40 PM
I am trying to wrap my head around how putting these signs in the yards of CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS violates THEIR 1st Amendment rights. On what grounds? I just don't understand.

DemonGeminiX
01-21-2022, 12:47 PM
I am trying to wrap my head around how putting these signs in the yards of CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS violates THEIR 1st Amendment rights. On what grounds? I just don't understand.

Because tomato?

Kinda seems like the logic they're using here.

lost in melb.
01-21-2022, 12:51 PM
I don't think it's the way to do it. The way to do it is to make sure the trick or treat groups have a few older kids and don't enter the houses.

DemonGeminiX
01-21-2022, 01:04 PM
I don't think it's the way to do it. The way to do it is to make sure the trick or treat groups have a few older kids and don't enter the houses.

Uh, no. The onus is not on the potential victims. The onus is on the convicted perpetrator to stay away from potential victims. That's the way it works.

deebakes
01-22-2022, 03:19 AM
butts county :datass:

lost in melb.
01-22-2022, 04:07 AM
Uh, no. The onus is not on the potential victims. The onus is on the convicted perpetrator to stay away from potential victims. That's the way it works.

I don't think this sheriff's implementation is practical.

DemonGeminiX
01-22-2022, 05:21 AM
I don't think this sheriff's implementation is practical.

By law, convicted sex offenders go into a publicly viewable registry. The sex offender's status is public knowledge. The sheriff was making sure the parents/kids knew where the convicted felons were, because not everybody checks the registry. It is also true that law enforcement is supposed to be keeping an eye on these felons. So yeah, it was practical. You can't get more practical than putting a sign up that everyone can see.

By law, convicted sex offenders are required to stay away from children. They're not supposed to be taking part in activities that involve children, including but not limited to holiday celebrations. The fact that these assholes are suing is making it obvious that they don't want to adhere to the terms of their conviction. The judge in this case is an idiot.

If it hurts the parents that have a convict living with them, then those are the breaks.

lost in melb.
01-22-2022, 05:28 AM
By law, convicted sex offenders go into a publicly viewable registry. The sex offender's status is public knowledge. The sheriff was making sure the parents/kids knew where the convicted felons were, because not everybody checks the registry. It is also true that law enforcement is supposed to be keeping an eye on these felons. So yeah, it was practical. You can't get more practical than putting a sign up that everyone can see.

By law, convicted sex offenders are required to stay away from children. They're not supposed to be taking part in activities that involve children, including but not limited to holiday celebrations. The fact that these assholes are suing is making it obvious that they don't want to adhere to the terms of their conviction. The judge in this case is an idiot.

If it hurts the parents that have a convict living with them, then those are the breaks.


Are sex offenders allowed to participate in trick or treat?

DemonGeminiX
01-22-2022, 05:35 AM
Are sex offenders allowed to participate in trick or treat?

No. They are not supposed to take part in any activity that involves children. That includes, but is not limited to, holiday celebrations (Halloween/trick or treating is a holiday celebration).

lost in melb.
01-22-2022, 05:54 AM
No. They are not supposed to take part in any activity that involves children. That includes, but is not limited to, holiday celebrations (Halloween/trick or treating is a holiday celebration).

Well, when the kids knock on the door they can just answer and say sorry can't help.

DemonGeminiX
01-22-2022, 06:53 AM
Well, when the kids knock on the door they can just answer and say sorry can't help.

Or... we could let the kids know not to go to the house and remove the temptation entirely... which the sheriff was doing.

lost in melb.
01-22-2022, 07:16 AM
Or... we could let the kids know not to go to the house and remove the temptation entirely... which the sheriff was doing.

Agreed, I guess it depends how this is done. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case.