The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Oklahoma S. Ct. Vacates Restraining Order Against Self-Described Pastor Who Was Sharply Condemning Pro-Gay-Equality Activists
The court concludes the pastor's posts were about the activists' organization (Oklahomans for Equality) and not about them personally; it thus avoided having to decide whether the First Amendment would have protected the speech if it was indeed about the activists personally.
From Hayes v. Penkoski, decided yesterday by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Darby:
The question before this Court is whether Defendant, Richard Penkoski, harassed or stalked Petitioners, Sheena Hayes and Morgan Lawrence-Hayes, as required for issuance of a protective order. Because Penkoski did not direct his actions toward any individual person, which the statute requires before the district court may enter an order of protection, we answer in the negative….
Penkoski is a public figure who holds himself out as a pastor, activist, and street preacher. Petitioners are also public figures; Morgan Lawrence-Hayes is President of Oklahomans for Equality and Sheena Hayes is Vice President of Oklahomans for Equality. Hayes is also the outreach committee chair for Petitioners' church, Disciples Christian.
On September 9, 2022, Penkoski created a post on Facebook. The post said: "This is NOT a church!! This is a satanic recruitment center to groom and indoctrinate children while they pervert the Word of God[.]" The post also contained two photographs, the first was a collaboration of photos of individuals with the overlying text "DISCIPLES CHRISTIAN CHURCH" in bold and below that in italics the text "Happy Pride Month[.]" The photograph cuts off halfway through the second line of text. The second photograph depicts a group of adults and children holding what appears to be photos or pieces of art. No text indicated the identity of the individuals in either photo. Petitioners testified that they and their minor child were pictured in both of the photos. The photographs were available on the church's public page.
The next day, on September 10, 2022, Penkoski attended the Bartlesville Pride Event in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Penkoski allegedly stood on the street corner and yelled into a bullhorn for several hours, shouting slurs across the street toward the children's bouncy house. Penkoski testified that he stayed where the police asked the protesters to assemble during the Pride Event. Penkoski had no direct interaction with Petitioners and Penkoski did not mention Petitioners' names or Petitioners' church by name.
On November 7, 2022, both Petitioners and Penkoski chose to attend and speak at the Bartlesville City Council meeting. At the meeting, Penkoski did not speak directly to the Petitioners, mention them by name, or have any direct interaction with them. No videos or photos of the city council meeting were submitted into evidence.
On November 11, 2022, Penkoski again posted on Facebook. This post consisted of the text "Liar, liar, pants on fire!!" and a video. The thumbnail of the video in the post showed a woman standing at a lectern with a microphone. The woman had dark colored, long hair which covered most of her face making her virtually unrecognizable in the photo. No text in the post identified the woman in the video. Petitioners testified that the video showed Lawrence-Hayes speaking at the City Council meeting but did not submit a copy of the posted video into evidence.
On November 12, 2022, Penkoski again posted on Facebook. This post had the text "Oklahomans for Eqaulity [sic] in Bartlesville OK caught lying about sexualizing children… See more" and a video. The thumbnail of the video in the post was almost identical to the previous one, showing a woman standing at a lectern with a microphone, with her long, dark hair covering most of her face making her virtually unrecognizable from the photo. No text in the post identified the woman in the video other than that they were associated with Oklahomans for Equality. Petitioners testified that it was also an image of Lawrence-Hayes. Petitioners did not submit a copy of any video for admission into evidence.
On November 14, 2022, Penkoski again posted on Facebook. This post stated:
I now pronounce you an abomination!!
God is not in this, matter of fact God hates the perversion of marriage. God created married [sic] for 1 man and 1 woman ONLY!!
This synagogue for satan operates in Bartlesville OK.
You should see what they think is approbation [sic] for children.
Matthew 18:6, "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Since there [sic] triggered over that verse, I wonder how they feel about Romans 1:32, "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Below the text, Petitioners' exhibit of the Facebook post shows one black and white photograph which shows two people from the back. One is wearing a dark suit, and the other is wearing a white dress and veil. Also visible in the photo are flowers and lit candles. There are no other adults or children shown. No text in the post identified the two individuals in the photo, or the name of the referenced entity in the post. Petitioners testified that this Facebook post contained two photographs obtained from their private Facebook page and included Petitioners and their minor child in both photos, but no child was visible in the one photo in the submitted exhibit. Furthermore, Penkoski and Lawrence-Hayes both testified that all of the photographs Penkoski posted were available on the church's public Facebook page.
On November 15, 2022, Petitioners contacted Bartlesville police. On November 22, 2022, Petitioners filed their Petition for Protective Order. The petition described the time line of incidents as occurring between September through November 2022:
The defendant first began his harassing behavior in the week prior to Bartlesville Pride. Before the event he shared pictures of parents & children of Disciples Christian Church & called us (the photo included our family) groomers & pedophiles. He then came to Bartlesville Pride as a protestor & stood next to the children's area shouting vulgar & obscene things. In November, he took a photo from my personal facebook & shared it to his page stating bible verses that imply I should be killed for being gay. He showed up at the November City Council meeting speaking out with more bible verses used to justify harming or killing the LGBT community. Following the meeting, he again shared a video of my statements calling me a liar. We have never been in contact with Mr. Penkoski, but he has repeatedly targeted our family with violent threats via social media, and he is now coming to city meetings in a town he does not live in.
Attached to the petition was a police report which stated Penkoski's offense was committing an obscene/threatening/harassing phone call (intimidation) pursuant to title 21, section 1172. The police narrative stated:
On 11/15/22, I was contacted by the President of Oklahomans for Equality, Morgan Lawrence, in regard to harassment. Mrs. Lawrence is married to the Vice President, Sheena Hayes. Mrs. Lawrence also has a son [omitted].
On 09/10/22, Bartlesville held an outdoor pride event at Unity Square (300 SE Adams). Due to overwhelming protests and threats, Bartlesville Police Department had to take extra security measures at this event. During the protest, Mr. Rich Penkoski is seen on multiple videos using a blowhorn and saying vulgar statements and obscenities. He is also seen holding a sign that says G-Got A-Aids Y-Yet. Mr. Penkoski would say "homosexuals rape dogs",[sic] "raping anus" and they are all "pedophiles." These sayings were confirmed by Officer Lemmons who was working the event as extra security. Mr. Penkoski can be identified as the one making these comments with the blowhorn near the children's play area of the Pride Event.
Mrs. Lawrence informed me, that a Facebook post was made after the pride event. The post was removed by Facebook, but she was able to provide me with screenshots. Those have been uploaded to this case.
The post was made by Mr. Penkoski and stated the following: [quotes Nov. 14, 2022 Facebook post quoted above -EV]. Mr. Penkoski then attached two photos of Mrs. Lawrence, Mrs. Hayes, and [minor child] at their wedding day ceremony. Mr. Penkoski is believed to be saying a millstone should be hung around "their" neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Five days ago, on 11/11/22, Mr. Penkoski made another post in regard to Mrs. Lawrence. The post stated "Liar, liar, pants on fire!!" Mr. Penkoski then attaches a video from the city council meeting in which Mrs. Lawrence is speaking in regard to the Pride Event and a petition involving the banning of adult entertainment in public spaces. Mr. Penkoski shows 38 seconds of Mrs. Lawrence speaking at the city council meeting and then edits the video to show portions of the drag queen performance on 9/10/22 at the Pride event. At the 1:12 mark, Mr. Penkoski cuts back to Mrs. Lawrence giving her speech. He allows this to play for about 18 seconds before again editing the video back to portions of the drag queen performance. While these edits are going on, Mr. Penkoski uses Mrs. Lawrence's words and altered voice over the playing of the performances. The total length of the video is 2:06….
The district court issued an emergency protective order the same day.
On December 15, 2022, Petitioners had Penkoski served with the emergency protective order while Penkoski was live-streaming at a protest in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Allegedly, the police officer stated both of Petitioners' names on the live-stream while serving Penkoski. Afterward, Penkoski posted the live-stream on social media for at least five days. Petitioners, however, did not provide a copy of the live-stream video to the court or offer the video into evidence. {On appeal, Petitioners have alleged that Penkoski made an active choice to publish the live-stream after its completion in order to publish Petitioner's names. This argument was not raised at the district court and this Court cannot take judicial notice regarding methods and requirements of posting Facebook live videos.}
On February 15, 2023, the Washington County District Court held the protective order hearing and issued a permanent order of protection for five years. The order prohibited Penkoski from posting any pictures, images, videos, or any likenesses of any kind of the Petitioners or their minor child on any social media; making reference to, mentioning, printing, or otherwise publishing their names on social media; and required that Penkoski must stay 500 feet away from Petitioners and minor child, in addition to standard protective order restrictions….
The Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned the order; the relevant portion of the statute, the court held, allows an injunction only following a finding of "stalking," which requires "contact or conduct toward an "individual," and
Penkoski's actions were not directed toward an individual person, but rather were public Facebook posts that named two organizations, not individuals. Penkoski spoke neither of Petitioners' names at the parade or the city council meeting. Penkoski did not send electronic communications to Petitioners, or contact them directly by any means, including directing a message, comment, or other content toward them. Penkoski did not photograph, videotape, or otherwise record Petitioners' activities. Penkoski created Facebook posts that included photos or videos he obtained from other sources which, while they depicted one or both of Petitioners, did not name either Petitioner or direct his message toward either Petitioner….
We need not address all of Penkoski's or Petitioners' arguments, including Penkoski's First Amendment arguments, because regardless of protected speech status, the district court abused its discretion in issuing the order of protection….
Justice Gurich dissented in relevant part:
Although some of Penkoski's commentary appeared to be directed toward Oklahomans for Equality, in truth, his oppressive and intimidating conduct was directed toward Morgan Lawrence-Hayes and Sheena Hayes (Appellees) as individuals. {Penkoski's posts included photos of the women and referenced "Oklahomans for Eqaulity [sic]." Both Appellees were active leaders in Oklahomans for Equality-Bartlesville, which is a local organization promoting rights for the LBGTQ-plus community. Lawrence-Hayes served as the president of the organization, and Hayes was the vice-president. In addition, Hayes acted as the outreach chairperson for Disciples Christian Church, which is a Bartlesville congregation promoting equality and diversity. As members of the LBGTQ-plus community, and because of their leadership status with the aforementioned entities, Appellees became the direct targets of Penkoski's persecution and terrorizing conduct.} …
First, his September 9, 2022, post clearly displayed an image which included both Appellees and their child. Significantly, the post contained a caption which effectively accused those people in the Disciples Christian Church group photo (which included Appellees), of creating a "satanic recruitment center to groom and indoctrinate children…" Use of this photograph, along with the accompanying hate speech, directly affected the Appellees. Although Appellees were not named, the post's impact was not limited to the church or any other organization. On November 11 and 12, 2022, Penkoski made two publications which included an image of Lawrence-Hayes, taken from the Bartlesville city council meeting. Therein, Penkoski accused Lawrence-Hayes of lying about "sexualizing children."
A Facebook publication made by Penkoski on November 14, 2022, showed both Appellees exchanging vows during their wedding ceremony. It also contained two bible verses which referenced death to individuals acting contrary to certain biblical teachings. {Penkoski referred to Matthew 18:6, which he quoted as, "if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." He also referred to Romans 1:32, which he recited as follows, "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."} The photograph was taken from Lawrence's personal Facebook page and was utilized by Penkoski without permission. Both Appellees testified they considered the post to be threatening and that they perceived the biblical verses as a call for their murder. In addition, Penkoski posted videos of Lawrence-Hayes speaking at the Bartlesville City Council meeting to a social media platform.
Further, Penkoski made physical appearances in locations he knew the Appellees would be present. He attended an LBGTQ-plus event in Bartlesville and positioned himself (with a group of other men) directly across from Appellees. During this episode, Penkoski used a bullhorn and yelled obscenities toward Appellees. Subsequently, Penkoski appeared at a Bartlesville City Council meeting to confront the Appellees about his hostile conduct at the Bartlesville Pride festival.
Penkoski was served with the emergency protective order on December 15, 2022. At the time, he was livestreaming a video to social media. When the paperwork was handed to Penkoski, the Tulsa Police Officer identified the Appellees as the petitioners. Penkoski subsequently disseminated the video with Appellees' names via his social media account(s), purposefully making Appellees' names available to his followers. This disclosure was intentionally done to harass, intimidate and torment the Appellees even more. The video post compounded Appellees' fears and brought about a flood of abhorrent messages from Penkoski's social media followers.
Penkoski's social media posts and intimidation tactics were not isolated incidents; rather they were an ongoing "course of conduct" designed to intimidate/harass Appellees and potentially incite violence toward the couple. He even testified that the Appellees, as parties to a same-sex relationship, were "worthy of death," according to his interpretation of the Bible. Considering the testimony and exhibits, it is clear Penkoski's actions were directed toward Appellees as individuals. In addition, the record supports the trial court's legal determination that Penkoski's repeated bullying (both in person and via social media) and incendiary rhetoric toward Appellees satisfied the definition of stalking. Because the trial judge did not abuse her discretion, I would affirm the finding that Penkoski engaged in stalking of Appellees.
The dissent noted that "By affirming the trial court's finding of stalking, the Court would be required to engage in an analysis of the issues on appeal relating to the First Amendment," but didn't explain how it would have analyzed those First Amendment issues.
Justices Kauger, Edmondson, and Combs also appeared to have dissented in part, but without opinion.
Joe M. Fears and Richard D. White (Barber & Bartz) represent Penkoski.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What screen name does delusional bigot Richard Penkoski use at the Volokh Conspiracy, where he is the target audience?
(The dissent is persuasive. If these petitioners wanted the support of right-wingers such as Chief Justice Darby, they should have indicated they were doing this for Netanyahu's government and that Palestinian civilians deserve to be slaughtered, terrorized, and displaced.)
I love how antisemitic you've become. What's sad is centuries of doing that to White Christian children didn't raise your ire, only when they did little brown moslem kids did you get upset.
That part is kinda weird and hard to wrap my noodle around.
Not surprised to observe your love of bigotry . . . somewhat surprised that you admit it.
How is my comment bigotry but not yours?
Oh, you and Arthur are both bigots, no question about it, but there is a difference in type. Arthur sees, correctly, that prejudice based on race, religion and sexual orientation is a bad thing, but he allows that to then spill over onto people rather than views. It's one thing to say that you have views that cause social harm; it is quite another to write off you and your entire demographic group because of it. (It's also bad public relations but Arthur seems not to care.)
Martin Luther King taught us that racists are not evil so much as badly taught, and that just because they hate us does not mean we should hate them in return. I'm in favor of depriving your side of political power to the extent possible, but that doesn't mean I can't see your basic humanity and treat you with respect even as I disagree with your views.
(It’s also bad public relations but Arthur seems not to care.)
He relishes it with his rhetorically delicious digs.
It remains to be seen if he ultimately helps, however slightly, reverse-psychologize Trump into office.
I’ve noticed when someone Fisher King Movies people, and their social media is replete with Rev-level rhetoric, he shuts up for a week. He’s also been quiet since the right wing won big in Europe last week, until today.
None of this is anything good. The lesser of two evils continues as a conundrum, apace.
I perceive plenty of value -- including with respect to public relations, at least among educated, accomplished, modern Americans in educated, strong, successful communities -- in calling a bigot a bigot. Every time.
Is it bigoted to dislike people for what they do?
That depends. Are we talking about not liking them because they eat raw oysters, or because they go to church, or because they are attracted to muscular upper bodies?
Dude, please don't be attracted to me.
Is it okay to not like people who kidnap and ritually murder innocent White Christian children?
Do such people actually exist, or are they merely the product of your fevered imagination?
Yes, it would be OK to not like such people, and it would certainly be OK to protect children from them. But that's because of the harm they do, unlike most gay people who, however strange you may view them, aren't really hurting anyone else.
They aren't?
Does it hurt me that my family has to chip in to pay for your gay party drugs when your prescriptions run >$1k/mo?
What about 1 in 6 boys being sexually assaulted? Who does that hurt? Anyone?
Or blinding syphilis? or Super gonorrhea? Or gay-origin superbugs like MRSA USA-300 or GRIDS?
And you think those things don't have heterosexual equivalents?
Just spend a day hanging out in family court. There are lots of children in the foster care system because of irresponsible heterosexuals, and lots of boys growing up without fathers because their parents didn't stay together. One in three women has been sexually assaulted.
Sure there are gay people who behave irresponsibly. There are also straight people who behave irresponsibly. So maybe you should focus on irresponsible behavior rather than the sexual orientation of who's doing it.
And by the way, I don't take gay party drugs, but I am on medication for diabetes and high blood pressure brought on by years of eating stuff that's not good for me that are also costing my insurance company 1k a month. By sheer numbers, if you're concerned about health care costs people who smoke and eat too much junk food do far more damage to health care costs than the relatively few number of gay partiers. So why am I not hearing social conservatives going after smokers and junk food?
“This synagogue for satan”
Interesting formulation
Profs. Blackman and Bernstein and former professor Volokh will issue a pass to that guy for brave service to the movement conservative cause.
Unless he turns out to be registered as a Democrat . . .
That's actually a Biblical quotation, In Revelation 2 and 3, Jesus twice makes reference to "those who say they are Jews, but are not, and are of the synagogue of Satan."
I think his comment is regarding the "for" not the "of".
And I would disagree with the premise that it's an interesting formulation. Most likely it means the guy was just being sloppy and misquoted the text. Or, maybe he did it intentionally and has some hidden meaning. But either way who cares about the babblings of an obvious idiot?
Obvious idiot?
The gentleman is clearly very well versed in history and has carefully considered and reasoned positions based upon the historical evidence and facts available to us.
"synagogue for Satan" might suggest that these people are serving the purposes of Satan, and not an identity. It could also suggest that in their place of worship, they worship Satan directly (not sure about this, because I thought that's what they actually did).
There are some interesting and thoughtful implications of that clever turn-of-phrase.
If one accepts his thoroughly flawed premises then his conclusions do in fact follow. But the whole notion that there even is a Satan is so silly that it's impossible to take seriously anything he says after that. And if he had any grasp of history he would know that historically, the positive contributions made by homosexuals are remarkable. I forget who it was that said that if Michelangelo had been straight, the Sistine Chapel would have gotten a coat of whitewash.
Are you saying Antonin Scalia was a delusional, superstitious dumbass and a deplorable bigot?
Speaking of whitewashing, that sounds like some historical pinkwashing.
I would be willing to bet that you have not read a single evolutionary biologist, developmental biologist, or anthropologist on the subject of homosexuality, and that everything you say on the subject has no basis other than your own prejudices.
Read evolutionary biologists, developmental biologists, or anthropologists on the subject of homo’s before or after the 1990s?
I'd be happy to read mainstream mid-century and earlier writings on the topic, do you have any in particular in mind?
Right, so you already know without reading them that they're wrong.
What inferences are you using to make that claim?
That you limited your willingness to read to mid century and earlier.
As with most other subjects, we know a lot more about homosexuality now than we did in mid century. You wouldn't limit your reading of either physical science or social science in any other area to that early. Seriously? Nothing written since 1990 about astronomy or physics or anthropology is worth reading?
And most people who study it for a living think you're full of shit. The pro-gay position is the mainstream in science, both the biologists and the social scientists. You're the one with fringe views.
The customary partisan pass from Profs. Bernstein and Blackman and former professor Volokh shall be issued to this right-winger, too.
Interesting
I seriously just don't understand the hate.
You don't agree with someone's life?
OK don't dwell on it and move on to something productive.
You can't reason with bigotry, superstition, or belligerent ignorance.
This one hit the trifecta.
Especially in Oklahoma.
Aren't you one of those who post how stupid Josh is on his posts? Instead of just moving on?
This is an odd parallel to make.
That is an odd diversion from the topic at hand.
No it's not. You're the one who changed the subject and made it personally about apedad. And as usual your whatabouting isn't even on point.
Nope! I may disagree with Prof. Blackman but have never called him stupid or any similar term.
This seems like the Libsoftiktok attacks where the only issue is the Leftist publicly available message being accurately presented to an audience outside the original poster's sphere. Shame any court found truth to be something to be censored.
And on a related note, three judges on the 1st Circuit upheld school censorship when it would offend transgenders. Two of the judges were appointed by Obongo and one by Bidet.
Allegedly you can't put something on your shirt because the transgenders will commit suicide, while simultaneously being transgender is totes mentally healthy and super normal.
They've never squared that circle.
Their stated answer to that is that transgenders and homosexuals have drug and alcohol problems and high suicide rates because of "discrimination."
The real reason is they're not right in the head.
Right, that all their suffering is from stigma. It's a treatment hypothesis that puts the burden of treating the mentally ill onto the rest of society instead of the patient and their therapist.
It's the same thing they said about homosexuality. But look at the decades of results. Still the same sad outcomes they've always had. High degrees of sadness, shame, STDs and other maladies like shorter lifespans and Gay Bowel Syndrome.
How many half-educated bigots can one white, male, movement conservative blog attract?
The Volokh Conspiracy seems determined to learn the answer.
Don't you leftists realize that we don't care anymore about being called bigots?
Sure you do. That's why you try to hide behind unconvincing euphemisms ("traditional values," "conservative values," "religious values," "colorblind," etc.) rather than thus admitting (as conservatives once did, proudly and openly) their homophobia, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc.
Clingers probably never had a chance to proudly proclaim their transphobia, however, because broad awareness of transgender issues mostly did not develop until after right-wingers had been painted into their bigoted closets and corners by the modern American mainstream.
Arthur, you talk of other people’s (“conservatives”) antisemitism, but in the very first comment in this thread you, out of the blue, brought up Israel:
OP has nothing to do with Israel. Bringing up Jews (or Israel) in every discussion, even when it’s unrelated to Jews or Israel, is a sure sign of an antisemite.
I brought up Netanyahu's government (war-crimey right-wing belligerents) as the most prominent example of something American right-wingers are currently lathered by and supportive of, in a context in which a right-wing court seemed highly motivated to rule against churchgoers (a otherwise odd point readily explained by the gay angle) and on behalf of a person described as a protester (again, usually the target of right-wing ire these days in the context of Palestinians).
Maybe take another crack at that one, Mr. Grinberg.
All those right-winger antisemites support Netanyahu and Israel?
A lot of them do, in the sense that (1) they like fellow right-wing assholes, (2) they believe Jews are going to play an important role in some childish fairy tale fantasy and therefore are temporary allies -- right up to the point at which they are no longer needed, and are to be cast immediately into eternal hellfire and damnation, (3) it has become a left-right divider in American politics, and (4) they see this as a chance, after decades of being defensive about right-wing bigotry, to finally play some offense by accusing liberals and libertarians who oppose Israel's war crimes, superstition-fueled terrorism, and right-wing belligerence of being antisemites..
These bigots are your fans, defenders, and target audience, Volokh Conspirators.
And the reason Leonard Leo had to pay a law school to make Josh Blackman a professor (a deal only a shit-rate law school would make). Did Mr. Volokh give away for free that for which South Texas got paid?
Yeah ... I think that the dissent is correct.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court had to work really hard to construe this as just being about the group, given that the individual used their wedding photos, information from their personal facebook pages, and disseminated their names to his followers.
If the appellate court wanted to narrow it, to ensure that the restraining order would only be regarding the individuals and not the group, that would be fine. Or even vacate with instructions to narrow. I think it's pretty well accepted that you can get injunctions for conduct (harassment, including speech) directed at specific people, but you can't stop people from generally speaking out about issues.
But this just seems like reading the record creatively. IMO.
STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; 52 jurisdictions ranked)
HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Oklahoma 41
UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE
Oklahoma 45
(and that includes backwater religious schools such as Oral Roberts)
ADVANCED DEGREE
Oklahoma 48
SUPERSTITIOUS DUMBASSES
Oklahoma 6
REPUBLICAN REGISTRATIONS
Oklahoma 11
The author of this decision is an entirely Oklahoma-educated Republican.
I think I understand. Because a state ranks poorly in your selected categories, no one in that state can rise far above the norm in any of those categories. Right?
People in poorly educated states tend to be superstitious, bigoted, Republican dumbasses. Oklahoma is dominated by obsolete clingers. Oklahoma's Supreme Court is highly unlikely to be a good or even average court.
The reality-based world has a strong liberal-libertarian, Democratic bias.
The court seems to have read the record a bit creatively to avoid addressing constitutional issues. The plaintiffs obtained a statutory remedy, and the Supreme Court construed the applicable statutes to be inapplicable to these plaintiffs in this situation. That makes some sense, given that the stalking statute is a penal law which should be construed strictly.
I disagree. Based on the record, and the order, it was fine. The defendant was still able to speak about the group, argue about the group, complain about the group, and so on.
He just couldn't go after the plaintiffs.
(As a general rule, injunctions prohibiting speech directed at individuals can be upheld, but injunctions prohibiting speech about groups or issues cannot. I don't see the issue here, and think that the majority was too creative with the record.)
We don't have an open thread today, but I'll say based on the CPI report, that the modern day stock market is bad for America. It doesn't help businesses raise capital, it doesn't benefit the country as a whole, it benefits Wall Street and the rich. That's it.
Is there any element of modern America, other than the residual right-wing bigotry and superstition concentrated in can't-keep-up backwaters, you do not hate?
So now you, as a self proclaimed liberal and champion of the working class, supports Wall Street?
I support modern America. Wall Street, especially when properly regulated, is a worthwhile and important part of modern America.
That's not what I said nor asked. Do you think Wall Street and the modern stock market benefits America as a whole?
Yes. "Worthwhile and important," one might say.
Yes, it's important that the elites and their captured SEC continue to bleed the middle class dry.
Good one, dude.
Disaffected, downscale right-wing losers are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and a core element of this blog's audience.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit (and are willing to subsidize).
"You will know them by their fruits."
The pastor, Richard Penkoski, is making himself known.
Eugene, you're being sloppy. In your attempt to minimize the intentions and harm of Penkoski's actions, in the headline ("sharply condemning" rather than the statutory term "stalking"), you mischaracterize the court's actual ruling, which was that his various statements had nothing to do with the individuals at all (and so fails to constitute "stalking" for that reason). If you were more careful, you'd say in the headline that Penkoski was merely sharply condemning the pro-gay equality activist groups represented by these two individuals.
I realize, of course, that you might have preferred to write a post about how a statute designed to prevent people from targeting others for (perhaps serious) harassment is unconstitutional. That would be just another entry in your growing list of posts where you ignore reality and bury your nose in the casebooks. Instead the Oklahoma Supreme Court has outflanked you with a hard-to-credit finding that is, unfortunately, not surprising to anyone who has watched how the judiciary treats anti-gay speech, beliefs, and practices with special deference. What a time to live in.
When the Stanford think tank offered you the spot, was it clear to them that you'd become more prolific, but not necessarily more insightful?
The Oklahoma case was decided on purely statutory grounds, without regard to any potential constitutional issues. The court having determined that the statutory remedy obtained by the plaintiffs in the district court was unavailable to them, it was unnecessary to reach any First Amendment issues regarding the statutes.
I understand that. As you put it yourself, this result required reading the record "creatively." I don't think the doctrine of constitutional avoidance includes creative reconstruction of the factual record.
Also, as I said, I am sure that Eugene was hoping for a meatier constitutional ruling here. He has written repeatedly, after all, about the constitutionality of these stalker laws. The best he could get here was an acknowledgment from the dissent that there might be a constitutional issue in this case, were the "facts" different.
.
He knows precisely what he is doing and what he seeks to accomplish by it. He also knows he and his fellow wingnuts have lost the culture war, which influences his tone and tactics.
Imagine being lucky enough to be born as a citizen of a nation that by birthright does not interfere in your speech (or if it does, there is recourse to remedy it). What an amazing right to have. Wow.
And then you exercise that right like this man has. How pathetic.
.
Mr. Volokh was not, as I understand it, born here. But he gets to exercise his rights as he wishes.