AR: What Do You Think People Are Going to Do With This List?
It’s that time of year again. Halloween is approaching, and the Izard County Sheriff’s Office in Arkansas has done something very irresponsible. They published a list of addresses where registered citizens live.
They say it’s to warn parents not to trick or treat at those addresses, but realistically, what exactly do they think people are going to do with this list? And what do you think is going to happen to the people or property at those addresses?
We all know what happens when you publish a list of people’s homes and tell the public there’s a registrant living there. Maybe some people will take a different route. But others will decide to harass the residents, threaten their families, vandalize their property, or make sure the neighbors know exactly who lives there. The people living at those addresses may have children and grandchildren of their own who will now bear the consequences.
If someone is subject to a legal restriction prohibiting Halloween activities involving children, that restriction should be enforced. But publishing a list of addresses is inviting vigilantism.
We all want children to have a safe Halloween. That’s not in dispute. The question is whether these public shaming campaigns accomplish that goal, or whether they simply create another opportunity to stigmatize, intimidate, and punish entire families without demonstrating that doing so prevents a single offense.
Before publishing an article containing a hit list like this one: https://ozarkradionews.com/arkansas-news/izard-county-sheriffs-office-issues-do-not-trick-or-treat-list, perhaps law enforcement and the media should consider the reality of what the public will likely do with this information. How does that make anyone safer?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But what about Wooley V Maynard:
The Wooley v. Maynard Ruling
In 1976, Robert and Carol Maynard challenged New Hampshire’s law requiring them to display the state motto “Live Free or Die” on their license plates. They argued that forcing them to display the motto violated their First Amendment rights because it compelled them to express a message, they did not believe in.
Wouldn’t that be the same in the sign case? The branded Driver License case and a list that displays their information which is a “Message they do not believe in”
Maybe a stretch but………….
Here is what we most recently wrote on this topic:
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/a-mixed-bag-challenge-to-floridas-sexual-predator-driver-license-branding-dismissed-but-not-on-the-merits/
Them publishing that list is a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment guards against being forced to speak and the right to speak. Printing a list is akin to forcing registrants to speak. I think.
Ehhh, not quite.
Possibly, if you are the one being forced to publish the list.
So the compelled speech would be the sheriffs office as the state law requires them to do so. Could the sheriff bring suit for compelled speech if he/she didn’t believe in the registration?
That is not an actual situation.