Old Oklahoman law

[ilikebacon3000]

I'm sorry if this isn't where it goes, but this really the only place I saw it going.

Anyways, check out this bullshit law Oklahoma still has in the books (I live in Oklahoma, by the way).
"Any person in this state, who shall carry or cause to be carried, or publicly display any red flag or other emblem or banner, indicating disloyalty to the Government of the United States or a belief in anarchy or other political doctrines or beliefs, whose objects are either the disruption or destruction of organized government, or the defiance of the laws of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the Penitentiary of the State of Oklahoma for a term not exceeding ten (10) years, or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by both such imprisonment and fine."

I make Anarchist shirts, I write notes very frequently on Facebook (which everyone can see) about my hatred of the "United States government" and my self revelations on Anarchy, most of which result in me saying something along the lines of "All forms of authority in America are simple examples of government sponsored terrorism. Bargaining won't work anymore. Militant overthrow is necassary." Basically, my emotions get too much power over my logic at times.

Anyways, this could easily be a way for the police to try and shut down Anarchist meetings, education groups, protests, etc, simple for having an anarchist point of view.

Very disturbing. Is there anyway I can fight this law?

[Demogorgon]

It is presumably unenforcable. A series of Supreme Court decisions have struck down similar laws and while I am not sure whether this one has been particularly dealt with, it will nevertheless be covered under them.

Edit: Yes, Stromberg v. California rules that banning Communist symbols is forbidden under the fourteenth amendment. To all intents and purposes this law no longer exists.

[ilikebacon3000]

It is presumably unenforcable. A series of Supreme Court decisions have struck down similar laws and while I am not sure whether this one has been particularly dealt with, it will nevertheless be covered under them.

Edit: Yes, Stromberg v. California rules that banning Communist symbols is forbidden under the fourteenth amendment. To all intents and purposes this law no longer exists.

But this law is still in the books, so technically, if some McCarthyistic (is that a word?) asshole police officer could go searching and find this law and shut us all down.

[Demogorgon]

But this law is still in the books, so technically, if some McCarthyistic (is that a word?) asshole police officer could go searching and find this law and shut us all down.
That isn't how US law works. Constitutional Law supercedes all other law without exception, so once the Supreme Court has ruled a Statute is unconstitutional, that statute and all equivalent ones are null and void. Remaining on the books simply means that the legislature has never repealed it, but that is not relevant in light of the court decision.

It doesn't matter how much a police officer may wish to try and shut you down, he or she cannot do so because no warrant can be issued. So don't worry, the statute exists only as a historical curiousity, superior law contradicts it and hence it does not exist in enforcable law.

[Dermezel]

It is presumably unenforcable. A series of Supreme Court decisions have struck down similar laws and while I am not sure whether this one has been particularly dealt with, it will nevertheless be covered under them.

Edit: Yes, Stromberg v. California rules that banning Communist symbols is forbidden under the fourteenth amendment. To all intents and purposes this law no longer exists.

As if every single Supreme Court decision is followed to the letter in every part of the US. A lot of laws that are enforced are unconstitutional simply because police are given a fair amount of autonomy in their own jurisdiction. Or as has been stated by a cop when he arrested my friend after quoting a Supreme Court decision "The cops sometimes disagree with the courts".

The cops can arrest you for three days without trial. Then it has to go to a local court, who can strike down the case with prejudice limiting your ability to appeal. Then the Appellate Court, Federal Circuit, and then maybe if you are lucky Supreme Court.

Unless the entire justice system is 100% run by robots who automatically have to follow Supreme Court decisions they can interpret the law in their preferred manner, and enforce it accordingly, during any part of that process.

And unless you have enough time and resources to follow a case all the way up to the Supreme Court, not the easiest thing on Earth, you will be SOL. And that is presuming the new Conservative Court that recently went against almost a century of precedence on Gun Control and Corporate Lobbying Cases even agrees with you.

[Dermezel]

That isn't how US law works. Constitutional Law supercedes all other law without exception, so once the Supreme Court has ruled a Statute is unconstitutional, that statute and all equivalent ones are null and void. Remaining on the books simply means that the legislature has never repealed it, but that is not relevant in light of the court decision.

It doesn't matter how much a police officer may wish to try and shut you down, he or she cannot do so because no warrant can be issued. So don't worry, the statute exists only as a historical curiousity, superior law contradicts it and hence it does not exist in enforcable law.

Uh no, no warrant can be legally issued according to the Supreme Court. The local judge may be a different matter.

And even then, they can take you to jail without charge. They can keep doing this as much as they like, and hold you for three days. They don't have to bring you to court.

[Dermezel]

Consider how cops are continuing to arrest people in Denver for smoking pot even after they legalized it (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/481/denver_marijuana_arrests_increase).

Or how about in New York how cops continue to arrest gay people under a law that was ruled unconstitutional: http://www.slate.com/id/2233014/


In 1983, New York's high court struck down as unconstitutional a 1960s-era provision that made it illegal to cruise—that is, to hit on someone in a public place. And yet in the 26 years since, on thousands of occasions, the New York Police Department has continued to enforce the defunct law, historically used to target gay people.And the local judges have convicted:


Whatever one may think of cruising and whether it should be prohibited, the court's ruling should have killed off the statute. Instead, in the 26 years of this law's odd posthumous career, district attorneys brought 4,750 prosecutions and judges convicted 2,550 defendants. For violating an imaginary law, these defendants paid a decidedly non-imaginary $70,000 in bail and $190,000 in court fees and fines. In the last 10 years, NYPD officers also issued 9,693 citations, forcing citizens to pay $71,000 in fees. The criminal records of these victims have never been expunged and the fees and fines have not been refunded.

A lot of this will come down to the cops. Do they want to tolerate this or not? And if not, whether or not you are prepared for fighting this all the way to the Supreme Court, which will take a couple years. Good luck with that.

[Demogorgon]

Uh no, no warrant can be legally issued according to the Supreme Court. The local judge may be a different matter.

And even then, they can take you to jail without charge. They can keep doing this as much as they like, and hold you for three days. They don't have to bring you to court.
You are being paranoid. An explicit striking down of a statute means that is the end of it. If they illegally arrest you, you can sue for civil rights violations.

Fact is unless you can find cases where people have been prosecuted for carrying Communist symbols since the court removed all such laws then you have no reason to worry.

This isn't some vague grey area where different statutes contradict one another and no court has issued a clear and unambiguous decision. It is a cast iron part of constitutional law, so stop panicking people for no reason. I know it is fun to think you are an oppressed dissident, but doing so just discourages people from being politically active.

[Red Commissar]

There are a lot of laws like these that have since become irrelevant, obsolete, or

I remember reading about this as a part of the Red Scare, and an interesting thing to note is that before the Red Scare, Oklahoma had the highest number of people registered to a socialist party in the United States... and a mere few years later the movement was disbanded and scattered to the wind with ordinances like this.

There are even some more benign ones on books. I know here in Texas there are laws still regarding how to punish people who cut barbed wires and stole horses which have no relevance nowadays.

If the law was challenged it would probably be found in violation of the precedent that was set in Brandenburg v. Ohio, but the thing is there is obviously few people from within Oklahoma who would care enough, much less have the resources, to see this to the end and have the law struck out.

So if some dipshit tries to invoke this outdated law against you they'll probably be in a load of trouble.

[ilikebacon3000]

Fact is unless you can find cases where people have been prosecuted for carrying Communist symbols since the court removed all such laws then you have no reason to worry.
That's kind of a problem... Because I am not aware of any Anarchist, Communist, or far left groups in Oklahoma.

[Physicist]

Like Demogorgon said, the ruling of Supreme Court automatically vetoes such laws. I wouldn't worry at all about it.

[Dermezel]

You are being paranoid.An explicit striking down of a statute means that is the end of it. If they illegally arrest you, you can sue for civil rights violations.

Fact is unless you can find cases where people have been prosecuted for carrying Communist symbols since the court removed all such laws then you have no reason to worry.

This isn't some vague grey area where different statutes contradict one another and no court has issued a clear and unambiguous decision. It is a cast iron part of constitutional law, so stop panicking people for no reason. I know it is fun to think you are an oppressed dissident, but doing so just discourages people from being politically active.

It means it is supposed to be the end of it. But as the New York cops and courts demonstrated that is not the case. So either you are arguing that violations of the Constitution only take place in the backwoods, redneck area of New York city, in which case I will have to bring in more examples, or you are supposed to concede the point.

As for suing for civil rights violation, again the gays who were illegally arrested in NYC have done this, and to little avail. They actually won the case. The Federal Courts ordered the police and local courts to stop enforcing the law for the second time in almost 25 years. The police were told by the chief to actually use a sharpie to black out that specific law so it is no longer enforced. The law is still enforced.

Also you do know a case can be struck down "with prejudice" right? This heavily limits your ability to appeal and is 100% determined by the judge, usually on a subjective basis.

And as for arresting Anarchists:



At 9.30am two police officers arrived at A Space Inside social centre, on Symonds Street, and arrested one activist for alleged breach of bail conditions, in relation to yesterday's demonstration against the detention of Iranian asylum seekers in Mt Eden prison.



They ventured into the stairwell and grabbed the young man. When other activists came to his aid the police pulled out their pepper spray and aggressively sprayed several people in the eyes. According to people present during the arrests the police did not have a warrant. The arrested activist was beaten by the cops once they got him outside the building and taken to the police station.


http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/77075/activist-arrested-anarchist-conference


In fact here is an extensive list of anarchists who have been arrested:



http://anarchistnews.org/?q=taxonomy/term/24&page=4


Now you are going to argue they were not arrested for using "anarchist symbols" but that's just because the cops won't actually say that and you know it. They will say they are arresting them for a variety of trumped up charges, and will use whatever they can. It's called lawfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare), using the law as a weapon for political reasons. If they can use the symbol charge, they will, if it is expedient not to use it, they will not use it. Likely, they will combine it with other charges if it is useful, or change their case. They can even begin arresting the person for having an anarchist symbol, rough him up, and if he protests claim "disorderly conduct", which is a very vague term.

[Dermezel]

That's kind of a problem... Because I am not aware of any Anarchist, Communist, or far left groups in Oklahoma.

As long as they are not seen as a threat, no lawfare action will be taken against them, unless the cop is a bigot- then he will arrest you for fun, and trust me, his local buddies in the police department and the court system will back him up. Very few cops work on principle (principle being they actually follow the law) and most of those cops are ostracized by their peers.

If you are seen as a threat, action will be taken against you for sure. I'd work by stealth and focus primarily on the net. The net is cheaper, easier, reaches more people, faster, more interactive/literary, and secure (in the sense that a cop probably won't arrest you for it or pepper spray you at a protest. )

Protests are moralistic, but the net is far more tactful. In any case, don't listen to Demogorgon, because if you do you will likely go to jail. And IF you are lucky, maybe in 10 years you might win a Supreme Court case (a lot of this depends on the political composition of the judges at the time), which may or may not be enforced (depending on how much federal power the Supreme Court wishes to exercise in defense of leftist anarchists in Oklahoma) .

[Demogorgon]

It means it is supposed to be the end of it. But as the New York cops and courts demonstrated that is not the case. So either you are arguing that violations of the Constitution only take place in the backwoods, redneck area of New York city, in which case I will have to bring in more examples, or you are supposed to concede the point.

No see. You have tried bringing up examples of laws that have been ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, often in more ambiguous terms. The problem first of all is that a lower courts decision may not be absolutely final (in that the authorities will want to test it to see if they can get a higher court to overturn the lower court's decision) and also when decisions don't strike down a statute but only rule that certain aspects of it cannot be enforced it is more confusing.

Neither problem applies here, there is no higher Court than the Supreme Court so it can't be appealed further and the Supreme Court has first of all used the case I mentioned extensively to justify late actions so it isn't about to get rid of it and has also struck down laws banning things far more controversial than communist or anarchist symbols using the same reasoning.

Now the question is are you really disputing me when I say that display of Communist and anarchist symbols are clearly and unambiguously legal, or are you just being bloody minded? Somehow I suspect the latter.

[Dermezel]

No see. You have tried bringing up examples of laws that have been ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, often in more ambiguous terms. The problem first of all is that a lower courts decision may not be absolutely final (in that the authorities will want to test it to see if they can get a higher court to overturn the lower court's decision) and also when decisions don't strike down a statute but only rule that certain aspects of it cannot be enforced it is more confusing.

Neither problem applies here, there is no higher Court than the Supreme Court so it can't be appealed further and the Supreme Court has first of all used the case I mentioned extensively to justify late actions so it isn't about to get rid of it and has also struck down laws banning things far more controversial than communist or anarchist symbols using the same reasoning.

Now the question is are you really disputing me when I say that display of Communist and anarchist symbols are clearly and unambiguously legal, or are you just being bloody minded? Somehow I suspect the latter.

The use of Confederate symbols has been banned since the Civil War by law. Just try telling that to the South.

The point being cops are not robots who have to strict to the letter of the law, and neither are the Courts. You can of course fight it, but like I said, it will take years. The cops may not even be aware of the law. And inconvenient laws have a way of being ignored by the status quo.

And Communism/Anarchism isn't exactly popular in this country. I mean, if a politician really clamps down on them who will come to their defense? Fellow anarchists and communists? What percentage of that country is this?

And even the term liberal has become a nasty word- so don't expect much clout from the ACLU. Presuming they even take the case.

[Axle]

I wouldn't even worry about it. Its likely just a Cold War or Red Scare relic that cops probably don't even know is on the books anymore.

[Auspicious one]

oklahoma anarchist crew

hey buddy :thumbup1:

thats a dumb law btw

[Rusty Shackleford]

This may be a whole different thread but what many of us refer to rednecks may have actually been rednecks in the 1880s-1930s.

The IWW was incredibly popular in the midwest when it organized agricultural locals. lumberjacks, miners, auto workers, maritime workers, all what would bee seen as rednecky could have been oriented to the ideology that fits their class. socialism. after the red scare and then the McCarthy days many of them have either renounced their views or their offspring bought into the propaganda.

now, many of these workers are not particularly educated(its true, dont start attacking me for this) and the US government got to them first. had they heard working class and socialistic rhetoric(or atleast somerthing with the potency of a government funded bit of propaganda) before they heard the cries of nationalism and the hardcore pounding of the american dream into peoples ehads after WWII. the only thing that made it possible for so many people to have a house and a family was because of a successful GI bill. that isnt capitalism is it? (i know those who fought did actually did a LOT of hard work though, im sure it isnt easy to fight a war)

[MaoTseHelen]

Is there anyway I can fight this law?

Don't obey it.

[The Douche]

As long as they are not seen as a threat, no lawfare action will be taken against them, unless the cop is a bigot- then he will arrest you for fun, and trust me, his local buddies in the police department and the court system will back him up. Very few cops work on principle (principle being they actually follow the law) and most of those cops are ostracized by their peers.

If you are seen as a threat, action will be taken against you for sure. I'd work by stealth and focus primarily on the net. The net is cheaper, easier, reaches more people, faster, more interactive/literary, and secure (in the sense that a cop probably won't arrest you for it or pepper spray you at a protest. )

Protests are moralistic, but the net is far more tactful. In any case, don't listen to Demogorgon, because if you do you will likely go to jail. And IF you are lucky, maybe in 10 years you might win a Supreme Court case (a lot of this depends on the political composition of the judges at the time), which may or may not be enforced (depending on how much federal power the Supreme Court wishes to exercise in defense of leftist anarchists in Oklahoma) .

Hey! This post is absolutely disgusting!

Half your posts on this forum are encouraging revolutionaries to support the democrats, and now you're trying to scare people out of being active in the real world. You tell the OP (and everybody reading) that if they actually are active in the communist/anarchist movement (which means doing more than getting on the computer) that they will probably end up in jail or injured. That is false, and is a detriment to the movement.

Seems to me like you're a troll.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hey! This post is absolutely disgusting!

Half your posts on this forum are encouraging revolutionaries to support the democrats, and now you're trying to scare people out of being active in the real world. You tell the OP (and everybody reading) that if they actually are active in the communist/anarchist movement (which means doing more than getting on the computer) that they will probably end up in jail or injured. That is false, and is a detriment to the movement.

Seems to me like you're a troll.

May i supplement this with the fact that no one was harmed at the March 20th protests(at least that i know) and at the March 22nd protest today at the Capitol in Sac, no one was harmed or arrested or anything like that.

The PSL was handing out their paper, there was an anarcho-syndicalist flag flying and there was a faint whiff of dope in the air.

i could see cops in the parking garage, on every floor watching us, but no one was arrested for protesting, handing out subversive material or flying a revolutionary flag.