Page 1 of 1

Fuck the law!

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:56 pm
by Gob
Several dozen people have held a profanity laced rally to protest a Massachusetts town's bylaw allowing police to hand out $20 tickets for public swearing.

Some people shouted curse words while others carried profane posters supporting free speech at Monday's rally in the rain on the Middleborough Town Hall lawn. People who support the bylaw also showed up.

The protest rally was organized by Adam Kokesh, a libertarian who publishes podcasts online from a Virginia studio. He says police can "steal from you if they don't like what's coming out of your mouth."

But police won't be issuing any tickets until the state attorney general determines if the bylaw making public cursing a civil offense is constitutional. The bylaw was passed overwhelmingly two weeks ago at a town meeting.

Public swearing was a crime under a seldom-enforced 1968 bylaw.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/weir ... 49845.html

Re: Fuck the law!

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:15 pm
by Guinevere
Just a note about context -- the AG reviews *every* local bylaw that is passed -- which means they look at thousands annually from the over 300 towns in Massachusetts. The review is limited, as Massachusetts has a "home rule" Amendment to our Constitution, which establishes rights of local self-government.

From a handbook on the subject:
The responsibility of the Attorney General to approve or to disapprove town
by-laws is established by G.L. c. 40, § 32.2 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court has characterized the Attorney General’s statutory role as a “limited power of
disapproval.” Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793, 795 (1986). Approval
or disapproval of all or any portion of a by-law is based solely on issues of legality and
must be completed within ninety (90) days of our receipt of all necessary
documentation. The Attorney General has no authority to determine whether a by-law
is wise, sensible, or the best way to accomplish a particular objective. Concord v.
Attorney General, 336 Mass. 17, 24 (1957).

...

The Attorney General may disapprove a town by-law on substantive[*] grounds
only if it is “inconsistent with the constitution or laws” of Massachusetts. The “laws” of
Massachusetts include the statutes enacted by the Legislature and regulations
promulgated by state agencies acting pursuant to statutory authority, as well as court
decisions construing the statutes and regulations. A town by-law is presumed to be
valid unless it sharply conflicts with some constitutional, statutory or regulatory court
decision, or it hinders the achievement of a clearly identifiable goal of state law.
Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793, 795-797 (1986); Grace v. Brookline,
379 Mass. 43, 54 (1979).
[*] By-laws may also be disapproved on procedural grounds. There is nothing in any of the articles I've read on this one which indicates there were procedural irregularities.

We will likely be following this issue for several clients -- will let you know what the AG does -- it could be interesting!