Butts County Sheriff, Gary Long, is appealing the District Court’s Ruling that placing signs on the properties of persons required to register violates their First Amendment Right!
If you recall, Sheriff Long was enjoined from placing signs saying, “NO TRICK-OR-TREAT AT THIS ADDRESS!! A COMMUNITY SAFETY MESSAGE FROM BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF GARY LONG.” at the homes of people on the sex offender registry in Butts County, Georgia during the week of Halloween.
The decision was a great win, so why is it exciting that he is appealing? Because Florida and Alabama share the same federal appellate circuit as Georgia. A potential win in the 11th Circuit would mean that the decision would become binding precedent in a Florida District Court. So, say someone in Duval wanted to bring a lawsuit challenging their Halloween Sign ordinance, they could rely on the 11th Circuit Case as case law.
It’s important to remember that appeals can take a while, so another Halloween might pass before any decision on their appeal is rendered. Also, it’s important to remember that cases can go either way – while we feel the registrant plaintiffs have a very strong argument and should win, any appeal is a risk. All that said, we’re excited by the potential of this appeal and we will certainly be watching the case.
FDLE performed it’s annual verification check.
Detective told me that Duval Council members were exploring the idea of “warning signs” but we’re talked out of it because no one could sell their house if the neighbor was marked a sex offender.
I don’t think this issue will go away. Let’s hope for a big win.
Sorry, but that detective is an idiot. That would not be a problem with the signs. Does the detective actually think that anyone who cares about the Registries doesn’t consult them before buying a home? They do.
The funny thing is that about anyone who would look at Registries and care is probably about the worst neighbor ever to have. Those “people” are awful and I never want them near my family.
I don’t understand your comment. In Duval, JSO does Halloween checks, not FDLE. We are already required to post signs in our yard on Helloween.
Anonymous might have been referring to the signs, such as what Bradford County posts in the yards of people who are designated predators, that would stay up all year long. I cannot believe that is constitutional.
Jacksonville checking in, we had the sign out this year despite living down two dirt roads with no trick or treaters. The sign is a way to endanger everyone in my house.
Has there ever been a case of a Registrant in Florida messing with kids in Halloween? Probably not.
Thanks for the heads up, time to start going to Jacksonville council meetings….
I just hope the court follows the rule of law and not the good ol boy system of injustice I’ve seen in the past. Praying this goes favorably for everyone’s sake!
Meh. Interesting, I guess. But if the criminal regimes want to post signs, why won’t they just pass a “law” that allows sheriffs to post signs on public property near the entrances to Registered People’s (RP) homes? Then they can be “legal”.
In the lawsuit, the sheriff did actually say that they were posting the signs on public right-of-way. Not everyone agreed that was true.
But anyway, I think the true signal of just how stupid Gary Long, the rest of the criminal sheriffs, and the Georgia legislature is in general is if this “safety issue” will lead them to “need” to pass some new Halloween “laws” in the legislative session that is starting up again soon. I mean, why don’t they just join other idiots and pass some “laws” that say that RPs can’t participate in Halloween AND that signs can be posted on public property? If it is such a safety problem. Why don’t the idiots just do that?
They could even be really criminal and try to do what the criminal state of Missouri did and make it illegal for any RP to even leave their homes on Halloween!! How is that for criminal? A criminal regime telling you that you must stay in your home so they can lie about protecting people!! Wow. In Amerika, no less.
One of the hilarious things about this case too is that these sheriffs are truly morons. They should have to pass an I.Q. test. Georgia law authorizes sheriffs to inform the public about people who are listed on the hit list. That is the law that moron Gary Long said gave him authority. But these signs didn’t do that!! If the signs had said, “Registered $EX Offender _____ lives here” then that would have been informing the public. These signs didn’t at all, so they weren’t even covered by the Registration laws. Dumb, dumb, and dumber.
The court’s decision said:
So freaking hilarious!! The ONLY thing that the law authorizes is that the sheriff can inform the public of Registered People. So the signs must say something about the Registries.
I also want to point out that Georgia Sheriffs’ Association runs a fund for “pensions” for Georgia sheriffs. This is above and beyond what they are paid. It should go without saying that all of them are overpaid. Every single one of them. People should work very hard to help push the compensation of all LE down as much as possible. Let those crooks compete with other people in a free job market. Stop letting the thieves rob all of us.
Remember – all LE is overpaid. Work to lower their pay, benefits, and morale. Because Registries.
Interesting. Given the wide scope of the First Amendment, it seems rather foolish for the high Sheriff to appeal because it could create a favorable result under binding precedent for all RCs in Georgia, Alabama and Florida. Thanks FAC for keeping us in the loop.
I need a like button for Bill’s comment.
Thanks Michael!
Even if this case were won at the Supreme Court level, I don’t think it would do anything useful. These signs were never really a First Amendment issue. I fully expect that the criminal sheriff could post signs on public land that said, “Registered $EX Offender _______ lives here.”
But the sheriff didn’t do that because he is dumb and his signs were nothing but election signs. There was nothing “first admendment” about the signs except that supposedly he required the signs to be posted in Registered People’s (RPs) yards. He disputes that but if true, that is compelled speech and a first admendment problem. He also told RPs that they could not post any of their own signs. An obvious first amendment problem that he could have easily avoided if he wasn’t dumb or cared.
I really don’t know why they are appealing this case. They could easily do the signs without any first amendment issues. Georgia’s law already supports signs. And they could easily create more direct laws that even better support them. The sheriff was doing the signs in an idiotic manner.
I think a lot of the reason why they are appealing is to keep the sheriff’s name out in public and keep him in office. The signs had his name on them. There was no good reason for that. The reason for that was to keep his name in the public and keep him in office. They were election signs. That’s it. Gary Long is a crook.
Dear Will, ifnyou think this case is not about a First.Amendment issue, then what is it about? The case specifically states: “the question is whether Sheriff Long’s plan runs afoul of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It does.” Please educate yourself and others. Thanks.
it is absolutely a First Amendment compelled speech case.
Sheriff can’t put sign on public property saying whatever he wants. This is covered in the ruling.
The ruling did not cover public property, it covered public right-of-way areas.
You are right that the sheriff could not say “whatever he wants”. I also said “anything he wanted” in a different comment but I hope people would understand that doesn’t actually mean anything (e.g. couldn’t say “please kill person _____”, lol).
This criminal sheriff ran into trouble because he tried to put signs on private property and/or right-of-way. And prevent competing speech. Georgia law allows sheriffs to put signs on public property that would say something like “Person ________ that lives across the street here at address ______ is listed on the Georgia $EX Offender Registry.”
As he attempted to do the signs, it was related to first amendment. And my point about that was that he was an idiot to try it like that. Especially the part about supposedly preventing Registered People from posting their own signs saying whatever they like.
So yeah, the case as it is has first amendment components. My point was that it would be easy to about that.
If the sheriff put signs on public property that said anything he wanted, then why don’t you tell me how that would be a first amendment issue? Thanks.
Yeah, but fools are foolish right? I think the Sheriff’s ego demands this taxpayer-funded retaliation on his part. Let’s hope that his brother, cousin, or other kinfolk aren’t appeals judges and he loses this thing.
I doubt the backwoods bumpkin knows that.