Judge won't allow bank protester to claim first amendment rights

[Addison]

The First Amendment has no place in Superior Court Judge Howard M. Shore's courtroom, not when it comes to vandalism with water soluble chalk.

Today the trial began in the case of a San Diego man who is being charged with 13 counts of vandalism for writing anti-big-bank slogans with washable children's chalk on a sidewalk outside of three Bank of America branches in Mid-City.

On one side sat Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old political activist who protested against the bailout of the big banks early last year. On the other side was Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard and law student and city attorney employee William Tanoury. Also accompanying Hazard were two other representatives from the City Attorney's side.

For Olson, and any free-speech advocates and political activists, the day couldn't have gone much worse.

Judge Shore granted Hazard's motion to prohibit Olson's attorney Tom Tosdal from mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial.

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2013/jun/25/chalking-the-plank-judge-wont-allow-bank-protester/

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Wow.

[msongs]

2. mention them anyway in every sentence uttered nt

[Generic Other]

3. defaced private property

is the only phrase his lawyers are allowed to use!

And of course he's not allowed to mention how or why. And he has to wear a clown suit to court with half his head shaved.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. K&R! There were 20 or more arrests in LA over the same water-soluble children's chalk

although none of those were actually prosecuted. Amazing.

[MindPilot]

5. If you live in San Diego...get some chalk.

Go outside and write "ACQUIT JEFF OLSON" on the sidewalk in front of your house.

You can also call the Judge's Clerk, and tell him your opinion of the Judge's ruling.

Judge Howard M. Shore.

Clerk James Walsh @ 619.450.5015.

[ljm2002]

6. Good idea except...

...I'd say, gather together at the court house and everyone write it on the sidewalk out in front.

Of course that's easy for me to say as I am not there so it wouldn't be *my* ass on the line.

Still I'd love to see it.

Also: it seems to me the judge has just given obvious grounds for appeal. I cannot believe it is constitutional for any court in the land to prohibit mentioning freedom of speech, etc. IANAL but that doesn't seem like it could possibly be legal?

[MindPilot]

7. That may actually happen.

I think jury selection will be completed and the trial will begin tomorrow. There is a lot of talk about various "activities of support". This story has gone pretty wide. It is here in several threads, over at Drudge, Huffpo, and even one Russian news blog.

[frylock]

8. great idea!

going to start carrying some with me and "deface private property."

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Move your money out of BofA and into a credit union. No prosecution for children's chalk! n/t