Snowstalker v. The Midwest

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I wish to file a suit against the regional assembly of the Midwestern Region for passing what I believe is a plainly unconstitutional piece of legislation, the so-called Midwest Fitzgerald-Cris-Sol Compromise, LGBT Equality, Hate Crimes and Suicide Prevention Act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This section, possibly inadvertently, turns LGBT citizens into a special class with extra rights. The wording of the law suggests that it is now illegal to fire an LGBT person--that is, not that it is illegal to fire someone for being LGBT, but that it is illegal to fire anyone who is LGBT. Similarly, it is now illegal to reject a college application of an LGBT person (especially silly since there is no way for a school to know the sexual orientation of an applicant unless they directly mention it).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The so-called ban on "verbal abuse" is incredibly vague seems not only unenforceable but quite possibly a violation of free speech rights. For the aforementioned reasons, I believe this bill is unconstitutional and I ask the court to take up my case.

X Snowstalker

[Oakvale]

This has been seen.

[Mechaman]

This challenge is evil and homphobic and god I hate Snowstalker he's such a bigot!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I second the thoughts of my secret lover Mechaman.

[Oakvale]

Personal commitments mean that we'll unfortunately be unable to make a decision on granting cert on this case for several days.

However, I'd suggest that that the plaintiff start to build his case and that the Midwest make preparations for their defense of this law so as to be prepared in the event that we opt to hear this case.

[windjammer]

I'm extremely disappointed Snowstalker. Why are you doing that?
And I share Mechaman and Alfred's feelings.

So, yes, I will proudly defend this law.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Let me clarify that I am a strong supporter of gay rights and support legal and social equality for Atlasia's LGBT citizens. However, I believe that this bill as it stands is unconstitutional as both a limit on free speech and effectively placing LGBT citizens above the law as a special protected class.

[Oakvale]

Please refrain from discussing this case until a date has been set for, well, exactly that.

[ilikeverin]

Shouldn't this matter be brought up in a regional court (i.e., my court) first?

[Oakvale]

Shouldn't this matter be brought up in a regional court (i.e., my court) first?

No, the plaintiff is alleging a conflict with the federal constitution. Such matters have always been dealt with by the Supreme Court. You are of course more than welcome to submit a brief for either side if so you wish, should we grant certiorari.

[ilikeverin]

Shouldn't this matter be brought up in a regional court (i.e., my court) first?

No, the plaintiff is alleging a conflict with the federal constitution. Such matters have always been dealt with by the Supreme Court. You are of course more than welcome to submit a brief for either side if so you wish, should we grant certiorari.

Harrumph.  Get your government hands off my government

[Oakvale]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether the Midwest's Fitzgerald-Cris-Sol Compromise, LGBT Equality, Hate Crimes and Suicide Prevention Act violates the Constitution of Atlasia.

Schedule

Petitioner has one week to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on Wednesday, May 28, 2014.

Respondent has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on Saturday, May 31, 2014.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 6:00PM EDT on Saturday, May 31, 2014, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need, and the right of either party to respond to the filed briefs may be granted upon request.

A period of argument (Q&A) will be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[Torie]

I was absent during the discussion of granting cert, but for the record concur with my brother Justices with respect to the granting of certiorari, and request that the following issues, among any others those who may file choose to argue upon,  be addressed in such Briefs as may be submitted:

1. Is the language bolded below as to punishment so vague as to be essentially unenforceable, without any rational basis, and/or a Constitutionally impermissible abandonment to the judicial branch of what are essentially legislative functions, as to the scope of the penalty for the violation cited or otherwise?


Section 1: Overview of the Protection of LGBT People within the Midwest
1) Any business, school or anyone else seen denying anyone who's LGBT the same rights as others will be subject to fines and lawsuits. Instances of this includes but is not limited to firing, refusing to allow someone who’s LGBT to partake in the services of a business, lower pay, an unfair, harder work environment, failure to allow the admission of an LGBT student into a school, or permitting bullying by peers or sabotaging the academic performance grades by teachers.


Quote
Section 2: Hate Crimes and Matthew Shepard
1) Physically assault, verbal abuse and sexual harassment will also be prohibited when the motives for it are done on the basis and intent of the person's sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. Anyone seen violating this law will be fined, imprisoned on bail, or face a criminal lawsuit based on the seriousness and bodily harm from the incident.



2.  To the extent the statute as written is intended or does prescribe a different punishment for what is otherwise the same crime if inflicted on those of the cited sexual orientation, does that raise equal protection or other Constitutional issues?

3.  Does the statute in Section 1, when it refers to the firing of persons, intend or can it be interpreted as applying only in the context of a discriminatory firing based on sexual orientation, or does it demand an interpretation of  prohibiting the firing of those of certain sexual orientations, irrespective of performance, and if so, does that violate equal protection of other provisions of any applicable Constitution?  

4. Does the Midwest region have its own Constitution, and if so, does it apply to this or any other issue involved in this case?

5. Does the statute intend that “verbal abuse,” be  proscribed even if not in the context of an employment relationship, if motivated by the sexual orientation of the recipient, and if so, does it violate free speech or other Constitutional rights?

6. If the aspect of the statute in question prohibiting "verbal abuse" is deemed Unconstitutional, and the balance Constitutional, or if some other parts thereof are deemed Constitutional, and other parts not, please address whether this Court should sever the parts held UnConstitutional, so as to uphold the balance of the Statute, or was it intended that the Statute was to stand in all its aspects only, or otherwise fall, or is it true that the Statute as written simply cannot be practicably applied or otherwise rationally and Constitutionally work unless the entirely thereof is deemed Constitutional and enforceable, raising public policy reasons against this Court severing the Statute in order to uphold part of it?

Thank you.

Junior Associate Justice Torie

[Cincinnatus]

The Attorney General will be filing an amicus brief. Thank you, Snowstalker.

What AG?  We don't have any appointed AG's that have sworn in.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

(Note: dunno if I'm supposed to PM this or post it, will delete ASAP if I'm not supposed to post it).

I am and have always been a strong supporter of equal rights for Atlasia's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, and my decision to lead the charge against the LGBT Equality, Hate Crimes and Suicide Prevention Act should not be taken as a reaction to equal protection under the law for all citizens regardless of their sexuality or gender identity. It is instead a fight against a law which, despite benevolent intentions, will cause far more harm than good. Without further note let us take a look at this new law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To begin with Section I, aside from it being horribly written and with penalties for violation ill-defined ("fines and lawsuits"), acts in blatant violation of Article VI, Section III of the Atlasian federal constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The framers of this law presumably intended for it to ban workplace and educational discrimination against LGBT people in the Midwest. Instead its wording falls into defining any instance of firing an LGBT person or failing to accept the university application of an LGBT person as discriminatory and illegal. In effect, it grants special legal privileges to the LGBT community, in direct violation of the equal protection clause above.

The clauses about "an unfair, harder work environment" and the section about bullying within Section I of this bill also appear unenforceable--the former is entirely subjective and the latter is unworkable--should teachers be directly blamed for any bullying incident involving the bullied student's sexuality, or does it legally penalize one child (or the bully's parents) for bullying another?

Section III, Clause I of the act clearly deals with hate crimes. Certainly no one is disputing that physical assault and sexual harassment should be illegal; my objection, rather, is that the inclusion of "verbal assault", and indeed the idea of a different penalty for crimes motivated by "hate" as opposed sexual or physical assault on their own. The ill-defined concept of "verbal abuse", and indeed the concept of "hate crimes" in general, acts as a direct violation of Article VI, Section I of the federal constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is true that this does not include "freedom of thought", but given the unfeasibility of government regulation of thought, and that "speech" is merely the verbalization of thought, I believe this is an implied freedom. Some minds, sadly, foster hateful thoughts which may translate to violent action--but hateful thought, speech, or writing simply cannot be considered a crime just because it is combined to a physical or sexual crime to form a "hate crime", nor will the outlining of "hate crimes" end bigotry. "Verbal abuse", especially without a specific definition (or any definition), is so plainly a violation of the right to free speech that I feel no need to address it otherwise.

Beyond this, Clauses II and III, while probably not unconstitutional, are so vague and unenforceable as to provide perfect examples of how fundamentally broad, poorly-worded, and useless this law is. In its attempt to protect a disadvantaged minority, it has converted that minority into a privileged class which literally cannot be fired or denied enrollment into a university for any reason, establishes unconstitutional thought crimes, and is otherwise so vague and open to abuse that I see no other remedy than to strike this law down outright.

[Oakvale]

Thank you for submitting your brief in advance of the deadline, Snowstalker.

I'd like to remind the Midwest that they have until the end of the week to submit their defense, along with any amicus briefs.

[windjammer]

Thank you for submitting your brief in advance of the deadline, Snowstalker.

I'd like to remind the Midwest that they have until the end of the week to submit their defense, along with any amicus briefs.

Really???
"Petitioner has one week to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on Wednesday, May 28, 2014."

[Oakvale]

What are you confused about exactly windjammer? Snowstalker cut it close but made the deadline - which makes a pleasant change from the times we've had to extend and extend the deadlines for all kinds of reasons.

[windjammer]

What are you confused about exactly windjammer? Snowstalker cut it close but made the deadline - which makes a pleasant change from the times we've had to extend and extend the deadlines for all kinds of reasons.

Well, I'm sorry, I didn't know you could extend the deadlines.

Well,
I will delete my message and repost it later (I hope I can)

[Oakvale]

Windjammer, you have until Saturday to post your defense. I hope that's some help.

[windjammer]

Windjammer, you have until Saturday to post your defense. I hope that's some help.

Thank you.

[Sol]

I have an amicus brief. I assume I can post it here- if not, let me know. I fear it doesn't answer all the points Justice Torie laid out, but it rebukes the allegations of the petitioner (I may be able to file an additional amicus brief regarding said questions if possible).

Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of Atlasia-

This law, the Midwest Fitzgerald-Cris-Sol Compromise, LGBT Equality, Hate Crimes and Suicide Prevention Act, clearly does not violate the Atlasian Constitution in the manner alleged by the petitioner. Firstly, the alleged constitutional breach in Section 1 of the bill is clearly not one- the act clearly specifies that the law does not create a privileged LGBT class:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Emphasis mine)

The second sentence of  Section 1 is explicitly structured to provide examples of “denying anyone who’s LGBT the same rights as others”. It explicitly does not create a privileged class- rather it is providing examples of manners in which an LGBT person may be discriminated against.

With regards to the second complaint, I believe that the phrase “verbal abuse” falls within the limits of the Fighting Words Doctrine. Verbal abuse implies an extremely strong degree of attack and incitement which would immediately “break the peace”- the acts which were held, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, to fall under the Fighting Words Doctrine.

Thus, I would like to recommend that this honorable body maintain this law. It clearly falls within the allowed scope of the Atlasian Constitution, and it definitely conforms to the body of precedent.

[Oakvale]

Will the Midwest be submitting a brief? The deadline passed an hour ago but I think we'd be willing to extend by a small amount if there's a good reason...

[windjammer]

Will the Midwest be submitting a brief? The deadline passed an hour ago but I think we'd be willing to extend by a small amount if there's a good reason...

Oh I'm sorry, I thought I had the complete Saturday.

[Oakvale]

Understandable given time zone differences, as long as you submit it tonight I think we'll let it slide.