Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Sentences Marijuana Advocate to Shut Up

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Flaneur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 01:48 PM
Original message
Judge Sentences Marijuana Advocate to Shut Up
This seems like a flagrant violation of the First Amendment to me.

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/07/11/news/top/doc4a58383a3e202589010523.txt?show_comments=true#commentdiv

Judge's gag order on marijuana advocate Bob Newland raises questions
By Kevin Woster, Journal staff | Saturday, July 11, 2009

The gag order imposed by a Rapid City judge on medical marijuana advocate Bob Newland as part of his sentence is an unusual penalty that injects political views over public policy into a legal process, a spokesman for a national criminal-defense association said Friday.

Jack King, director of public affairs and communications for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Washington, D.C., said Judge John "Jack" Delaney took an unusual step in forbidding Newland from taking any public role in the campaign to legalize marijuana for medical uses for one year. The restriction was part of the judge's sentence issued Monday for Newland's conviction for felony pot possession.

Delaney sentenced Newland to a year in jail but suspended all but 45 days, with stipulations including random searches and weekly drug tests and a ban on public advocacy for medical marijuana. Newland could end up serving all or part of the remaining jail time if he violates terms of the sentence. Delaney lectured Newland on the problems of marijuana use, particularly among youths, and told the outspoken advocate for legalizing marijuana for medicinal use that he was "not going to take a position as a public figure who got a light sentence."

King said that other than the speech prohibition, the sentence seemed "eminently fair, considering that Newland pleaded guilty to a felony," but he was troubled by the speech restriction in the sentence. "The judge made it very unusual when it did that," he said. "I don't know if the judge realized that he was imposing his politics on Mr. Newland as a condition of his probation."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CrownPrinceBandar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't know if that's legal..............
hopefully some DU legal experts can flesh this out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flaneur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. More coverage, harsher criticism in the Drug War Chronicle
Mods: www.stopthedrugwar.org allows full reprints as long as you put their web site name on it

Feature: Censorship in South Dakota -- Marijuana Activist Silenced By Judge as Condition of Probation
view edit outline track workflow translation

Printer Friendly Version Email this Articlefrom Drug War Chronicle, Issue #593, 7/10/09

For most of this decade, Bob Newland has been the voice of marijuana law reform in South Dakota. The photographer and Black Hills resident has organized Hempfests, lobbied for reform legislation in the state capitol, relentlessly crisscrossed the state from the Black Hills to the Sioux Valley, and organized medical marijuana petition drives. He is the director of South Dakota NORML and founder of South Dakotans for Safe Access. As a marijuana reform activist, Newland has been unstoppable -- until now.

Newland was arrested earlier this year after being pulled over while driving for carrying slightly under four ounces of marijuana on what his lawyer described as a "mission of mercy." Originally charged with possession with intent to distribute, the veteran activist accepted a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to possession of under a half-pound of marijuana, an offense that carries a sentence of up to two years in the state penitentiary. Prosecutors agreed to make no sentencing recommendations.

On Monday, Newland appeared in court in Rapid City to learn his fate. Judge John Delaney didn't throw the book at him -- he was sentenced to one year in jail, with all but 45 days suspended -- but threw him a curveball instead. While under the court's supervision for the next year, Newland must not exercise his First Amendment right to advocate for marijuana law reform in South Dakota.

According to the Rapid City Journal, which had a reporter in the courtroom, Judge Delaney had two issues with Newland's marijuana reform advocacy. He was determined that Newland not appear to have gotten off lightly, and he did not want Newland's words to encourage young people do drink or use drugs.

"You are not going to take a position as a public figure who got a light sentence," Delaney warned Newland before talking about how juvenile courts are packed with kids who have drug problems. "Ninety-five percent of my chronic truants are using pot," Delaney said.

The no free speech probation condition raised ire and eyebrows not only in South Dakota, but across the land. Concerns are being expressed not only by drug reformers and civil libertarians, but also by legal scholars.

"Surrendering our First Amendment rights cannot be a condition of probation," said Allen Hopper, litigation director for the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "The Constitution clearly protects the right to advocate for political change without fear of criminal consequence. It is a shame that the court feels obligated to muzzle protected speech in a misguided effort to guard society from unfounded fears of open debate. Bob Newland is just the latest victim of a baseless drug policy that continues to clog our prisons and trample our rights."

"Courts impose conditions on probationers all the time, but this sort of condition is very unusual," said Chris Hedges, professor of law at the University of South Dakota. "People ought to be able to argue that the law should be changed, but now he can't do that. We always have to be concerned when someone's speech is infringed," she said.

"Bob is a classic example of an individual activist who was one of the lone activists in the whole state and who now knows smartly the pains of prohibition," said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of national NORML. "Those of us familiar with South Dakota laws and practices were not surprised with the jail time, but clamping down on First Amendment rights is something else. Judges put all kinds of restrictions on people on probation, but they don't usually say you can't engage in First Amendment activity."

It was precisely Newland's role as the face of marijuana reform in the state that earned the censorious probation, St. Pierre said. "Bob's pot bust was hardly an aberration, but the judge recognized he had the state's leading reefer rabble rouser in front of him. Had the judge had Joe Blow in front of him, I can't imagine that he would be saying you can't talk to anybody about this."

"It's appalling," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "I can't imagine any reason why anyone should, as part of a criminal sentence, be barred from arguing that the law he was arrested on is wrong and should be changed. This is profoundly troubling. Whatever you think of the individual or the law, we do have something called the First Amendment, and it should apply to Mr. Newland as well as anyone else. I can't imagine how the people of South Dakota could be endangered by allowing Mr. Newland to advocate for what he believes in."

"It's really sad what happened to Bob on Monday," said Emmett Reistroffer, who has stepped up to take Newland's place as leader of South Dakotans for Safe Access, which currently has a signature gathering drive under way to get a medical marijuana initiative on the 2010 ballot. "I've never heard of that before in my life. I'm not an attorney, but the first thing I think is what basis does the judge have for depriving someone of their First Amendment rights?"

Newland himself was surprised at the probation condition, but uncertain as to whether it was worth fighting. In what may be his last words on the subject -- for the next year, anyway -- he told the Chronicle he feared the "negative effects" of challenging it. In other words, he doesn't want to get thrown in jail for even longer than he will already have to serve.

"This seems to me to be a quite unusual sentence provision, of a sort I have never encountered in all my years of activism and watching other people get sentenced for illegal substances. It certainly plays at the edges of suppression of speech of the sort we expect to see in totalitarian countries," he said. "Judge Delaney wanted to make a statement with the sentence, and he surely did. If I were inclined to fight the provision, the immediate negative effects on my life would almost certainly outweigh any gain I could accomplish. Therefore, I must say that I accept the judge's decision in the same light that I accept all the other provisions of the sentence. If this statement so far hasn't taken me over the boundaries of taking a 'public role' in reform advocacy, I'd probably better wait a year to add to it."

But Newland may not be silenced just yet. Those words were written Wednesday, before the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project had a chance to discuss the issue with him. That organization is definitely interested in pursuing the case. If Newland wants to move forward with challenging the no free speech provision, drug reform groups will stand with him, said St. Pierre and Mirken.

"Drug policy reform groups have an immediate interest in this case," said St. Pierre. "It sets a terrible precedent and is such an aberration to be told what political subjects you can talk about. The right to exercise political speech is the fulcrum this will turn on."

Newland may also gain some reassurance from law professor Hutton. Newland should be free to challenge the no free speech condition without fear of legal reprisal, said Hutton. "If he just filed something to challenge that, it cannot be used against him," she said.

Ironically, the judge's probation condition may prove to be a boon to the movement in South Dakota, said St. Pierre. "Just the fact that this has happened has caught the attention of people around the world," he said. "Painful as this is, Bob is now probably going to raise the profile of this debate higher than 10 years of wearing out shoe leather -- and without saying a word."

Bookmark/Search this post with:
digg | reddit
Drug War Issues Marijuana -- Personal Use - Free Speech - Probation or Parole
Politics & Advocacy Legalization - Decriminalization - State Courts
1072 readsemail this page
<- previous article in this issue | next article in this issue ->
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes, that sentence was way out of line
And it sets a very dangerous precedence if not appealed. I'm guessing that Delaney would need to be willing to go to jail by flagrantly violate the terms of his sentence (advocate for medical marijuana) in order to appeal.

The judge seems to be a real prick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. "precedent".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. He can appeal that part of the sentence without advocating medial marijuana
and without becoming a martyr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Appeal time!
Didnt realize that one could lose the right to speak when convicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kirby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Why not?
The way this country has gone, you lose the right to vote, so the slippery slope certainly leads to losing the right to speak. Unless you are a Christian, you pretty much lose the right to your religion too.

It is a sad commentary on the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boddingham Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. I don't think one has to be a legal eagle to figure this one out.
Yelling "fire" in a theater, and all of that general 1st amendment law considered. The gag order is definitely a constitutional violation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pyoom Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Maybe so. Check my post below. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Unconstitutional.. Government restricting speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rcrush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good lord
ITS JUST SOME FUCKING WEED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrownPrinceBandar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. Governors veto pot legislation........
in Hawaii, Governor Lingle (R) vetoed pot research bill because it "circumvents" federal law.
http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/08/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil/

in NH, Governor Lynch (D) caves to L.E. and will most likely veto a medical marijuana bill.
http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/10/want-to-know-why-marijuana-is-illegal-ask-governor-john-lynch-or-ask-your-own-governor/

And the beat goes on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. I think that will top the list of asinine rulings for the week.
And it will certainly be overturned on appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flaneur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. The question is whether it will be appealed.
Newland said earlier this week he wasn't likely to. He said he didn't have the money, was afraid of pissing off the judge, and even more afraid of having to sit in jail for a year.

That's one way courts and cops get away with unconstitutional actions.

But...the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project wants to talk to him, and the drug reform groups said they would support him, so maybe an appeal will actually happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flaneur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. Meanwhile in California, TV stations refuse to air pot reform ads
Again from the Drug War Chronicle:

Mods: This organzation allows full reprints as long as there is a link

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/593/marijuana_policy_project_mpp_california_tv_ad_campaign


Feature: Censorship in California -- MPP Marijuana Ad Campaign Hits Bumps as Stations Reject It

The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) kicked off a TV ad campaign aimed at gaining support for a California marijuana legalization bill in the legislature on Wednesday, but ran into problems with several TV stations around the state, which either rejected the ad outright or just ignored MPP efforts to place it. Still, the spots are up and running on other Golden State stations.

Playing on California's budget crisis -- the state is $26 billion in the hole and currently issuing IOUs to vendors and laying off state workers -- the 30-second spots feature middle-aged suburban Sacramento housewife Nadene Herndon, who tells the camera:

"Sacramento says huge cuts to schools, health care, and police are inevitable due to the state's budget crisis. Even the state's parks could be closed. But the governor and the legislature are ignoring millions of Californians who want to pay taxes. We're marijuana consumers. Instead of being treated like criminals for using a substance safer than alcohol, we want to pay our fair share. Taxes from California's marijuana industry could pay the salaries of 20,000 teachers. Isn't it time?"

As Herndon finishes speaking, the words "Tax and regulate marijuana" appear on the screen, as well as a link to Controlmarijuana.org. Clicking on that link actually takes you to MPP's "MPP of California" web page.

"I'm a medical marijuana user," Herndon told the Chronicle. "I was at Oaksterdam University with my husband looking at some classes, and the chancellor came out and said I would be perfect for an ad they were thinking about. I talked to my husband, and he said maybe I should do it. It is a cause near and dear to my heart, so I did," she said.

The response from acquaintances has been very positive, she said. "I've gotten lots of positive messages, and a few who are worried for my safety or that my house might be vandalized," said Herndon. "I have gotten a couple of odd phone calls, though, so I've changed my number."

The spots are aimed at creating public support for AB 390, a bill introduced in February by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). That bill would legalize the adult possession of marijuana and set up a system of taxed and regulated cultivation and sales.

The bill and the ad campaign come as support for marijuana legalization is on the rise in California. A recent Field poll showed support at 56%. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone on the record saying that legalization needs to be discussed. And, thanks to the state's medical marijuana laws, millions of Californians can see with their own eyes what a regime of legal marijuana sales might look like.

It would appear that marijuana legalization is a legitimate political topic in California, but that's not what a number of the state's major market TV stations think. At least six stations have rejected or ignored the ads. Oakland NBC affiliate KTVU and San Francisco ABC affiliate KGO declined to air the ad, as did San Jose NBC affiliate KNTV. Three Los Angeles stations, KABC, Fox affiliate KTTV, and KTLA also refused to air the ad.

KGO told MPP that they "weren't comfortable" with the spot, while KNTV said only that "standards rejected the spot." KABC claimed the ad "promotes marijuana use."

But while some local stations have balked, the ad is running on stations in Oakland, Sacramento, and San Francisco, as well as on MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN, via California cable operators.

"We are astonished that major California TV stations chose to censor a discussion that Governor Schwarzenegger has said our state should have on an issue supported by 56% of voters, according to the Field poll," said Aaron Smith, MPP California policy director. "The two million Californians who use marijuana in a given month deserve to have their voices heard -- and their tax dollars should help solve the fiscal emergency that threatens our schools, police and parks."

"That those stations would refuse to run the ad is appalling," said MPP communications director Bruce Mirken. "This wasn't something we expected; this wasn't a stunt to get press coverage. This was intentionally a very innocuous ad."

Mirken took special umbrage at KABC's suggestion that the ad "promotes marijuana use." "It's a really tortured reading of that ad to claim that," he said. "The ad is simply recognizing the reality that there are lots of marijuana consumers out there unable to pay taxes on their purchases because we have consigned marijuana to a criminal underground," he said.

Alison Holcomb, drug policy director for the ACLU of Washington, told the Huffington Post that while the refusals don't "implicate the First Amendment from a legal standpoint," she believes the practice "undermines a core principle underlying the First Amendment: that the strength of a democracy flows from the exchange of ideas."

As Holcomb noted, the various stations' refusal to accept the ad is not a First amendment violation in the strict sense -- no governmental entity is suppressing MPP's right to seek air time to run its ad, and the stations are within their legal rights to refuse it. But the effect is to suppress MPP's ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and MPP smells a double standard.

"When the governor of the state has said we ought to have this debate, it would seem to mean letting all sides air their views," said Mirken. "Pretty much all of these stations that rejected our ad have aired ONDCP anti-marijuana ads, which are often blatantly dishonest, so they are effectively taking sides in the argument. That feels fundamentally unfair."

The battle continues. As of Thursday, MPP was effectively shut out of the Los Angeles market, except for the cable news networks. But Mirken said he hoped to have the ad on the air there by the weekend.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pyoom Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. If Newland explicitly agreed to it as part of a suspended sentence,
Edited on Sat Jul-11-09 03:36 PM by pyoom
it's not unconstitutional.

I can't tell exactly what happened, though.

Without explicit agreement on his part, arguments can be made that his rights are being violated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC