Source: ACSOL
Today the plaintiff in the case challenging Missouri’s Halloween sign requirement filed his final brief in federal district court. The brief includes testimony from the trial which took place in St. Louis on June 20. In the brief, the plaintiff repeated his argument that the Missouri state law that requires signs to be posted on Halloween violates the First Amendment because it is speech compelled by the government.
The brief notes that the proper standard of review for this case is strict scrutiny, a burden the Attorney General failed to meet. As a result, the plaintiff requests that the federal district court grant a permanent statewide injunction.
Testimony noted in the brief includes testimony from both an alleged expert witness from Arizona as well a Missouri state government official. Their testimony differed significantly in that the expert witness stated that the rate at which registrants re-offend is more than 30 percent while the state government official testified that the rate of re-offense is less than 2 percent.
“The bottom line in this case is that the State of Missouri believes that a person convicted of a sex offense is not entitled to protection from the First Amendment,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We disagree strongly with that belief.”
The court is expected to issue its decision in this case within the next 30 days. If the court grants a permanent statewide injunction, it is expected that the State of Missouri will appeal the court’s decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The trial brief:
State of Missouri - Halloween signs - Post Trial Brief - CONFORMED
Boy am I fed up with these BULLS*** LIES!!!!!
Do these experts not have to provide citations with their statements they are making for the record? It would seem they are lying about the facts when they are only spoken and not backed up with citations of the data they’re speaking to. It they don’t, it’d seem they are only opinions then which would need to be disclosed as such.
It still aggravates me that the Halloween sign thing has to be fought again. And probably again this year in another state.
I like the arguments brought up in this case. The least restrictive means for accomplishing the “goal” of the government. This is only relevant for strict scrutiny but still. It shows that in many cases, the restrictions are not least restrictive. There are many legal activities that can happen at a park or pool that have nothing to do with children. So the overbreadth argument is true in those cases. Its just whether or not using public services is a fundamental right. I believe it is.
Frankly, the courts believe today those who are convicted are not entitled to much after their conviction and would strip everything away if they could get away with it minus their citizenship, but what good is that if you cannot do anything with it in the country you live?
The decision in this case should come in any day now, Keep our fingers crossed the court see’s that sign as well as the rest of the restrictions on halloween is Unconstitutional as hell, Come on we spend one night a year at Halloween on house arrest and denied the right to participate in Family gatherings, Don’t make since Why not Christmas also I mean Santa has kids on his Lap, who knows who hides behind the Beard. Just venting here because Like the rest of you reading this I am fed up the the BS
So, what is the status of the MO Halloween Sign case? Plaintiff’s filed by the JUL 21st deadline. I cannot find where the MO AG filed their Post-Trial brief by the required due date. Or did the MO AG file another extension like they did just before the original Federal Hearing?