Missouri Halloween sex offender sign requirement heard in the Eighth Circuit
The state of Missouri is trying to revive a requirement for sex offenders to post a sign on Halloween stating they don’t have candy or treats at their residence. The law was blocked last October in the District Court, which stated that it violated the First Amendment guarantee of speech by compelling sex offenders to post the sign on their private property.
Yesterday, a panel of the Eight Circuit heard oral argument in the State’s Appeal.
Attorney Janice Bellucci represented the registrant in the case. You can listen to the oral argument HERE.
The Court took the matter under advisement. They are unlikely to render a decision prior to Halloween, but we will be watching this case closely.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As posted in the Courthouse News Service:
“In North Dakota, if there is quicksand, we’re required to post it,” U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph R. Erickson, a Donald Trump appointee, said during the 30-minute hearing. “Obviously the cattle don’t understand it’s quicksand. But you know, in theory, somebody wandering up, they see it’s there, and no one has ever asserted that that’s being too compelled (of speech).”
We’re compared to cattle?
My opinion, it did not go so well, sounded like their minds were already made up. How can they compare, making you display a Halloween sign in your yard to a Sign that warns you of Quick Sand is baffling to me. Did I miss something?
I think the Justice was making a public safety comparison. Registrants to Quick Sand. I understood his point but the other Justice made a good point after Janice that the Quick Sand Sign in the least restrictive. But the signs are not. Ie. Parents can look up their neighborhood to find out the locations of RSO and the Police patrolling at night know where we live as well, so the sign is not least restrictive making it compelled speech and not least restrictive. Its a jump ball for me I would say though 1 for us and 2 against.
I don’t believe this case is going to be won.
Janice recieved notable opposition from one of the judges who also rudely interrupted her many times. He also predominantly favored and sided with the defense.
I am sad to say I agree. I think the other reasons is that the State made a good point. It doesnt say anything about SO. SO It could be determined that Hey these people dont celebrate Halloween, nothing to see here. Also It does say how big how small etc the sign has to be. I think they lose here. Which will have a ripple effect. I believe in our state this only applies to those convicted or offence date after 2014 or 2010. Or if you are on Probation.
That judge is wrong comparing signs posted about buried electrical lines and compelling someone on their private land. If an area is open to the public, the city has a responsibility to warn bystanders of any potential hazards. That’s like saying I HAVE to put either a Trump or Biden sign in my yard.