Court should stomp on park's Bigfoot ban.pdf

                _____________

Bigfoot takes free speech

claim to high court

Film director denied access to park

By Lynne Tuohy / The Associated Press

November 9, 2011

Bigfoot is taking his First Amendment case to New Hampshire's top court.

When Jonathan Doyle of Keene donned a Bigfoot costume and set out to videotape staged sightings of the fabled ape-like creature on Mount Monadnock two years ago, state park officials put the kibosh on his escapades, saying Doyle and his friends failed to pay $100 for a special-use permit 30 days in advance and secure a $2 million bond.

But such requirements stifle free speech and artistic expression and are too broad to pass constitutional scrutiny, say Doyle and the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. Defeated at the trial court level, they've now climbed to the top of New Hampshire's legal system, the state Supreme Court.

The state, which won a summary judgment motion in May, argues the permit requirement for organized events is applied fairly and is designed to enhance public enjoyment of the state's parks "free from unwelcome or unwarranted interference, annoyance or danger."

Merrimack Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler agreed. He said Doyle's film "was far more than a simple attempt at spontaneous expression. It was a full-fledged commercial production."

The justices of the Supreme Court are slated to hear from both sides tomorrow.

Doyle first wore his Bigfoot costume on the top of Monadnock on Sept. 6, 2009, then interviewed hikers at random about what they saw. Those interviewed went along with the skit, and Doyle posted his video on YouTube.

The 31-year-old Doyle is "a sometimes landscaper, sometimes janitor and a full-time free spirit, filmmaker and performance artist," NHCLU director Barbara Keshen said in her brief.

He planned to make another movie, The Capture of Bigfoot, and the Keene Sentinel wrote about it. Park manager Patrick Hummel saw the story and emailed a supervisor under the subject line, "Bigfoot problem on Monadnock . . . not kidding," according to court documents. In another email, Hummel wrote, "Why does this mountain attract these time wasters?"

On Sept. 19, 2009, Doyle returned to the mountain with five other people in hopes of making the film. Doyle was dressed in casual clothing to film the movie, while a friend wore the gorilla costume and two other people wore other costumes. Hummel intercepted the party on the mountain and told them they would need a permit to continue, setting in motion the lawsuit filed in March.

"When you have a regulation that gives unfettered discretion to the people in charge of enforcing it, there's always the danger they're going to suppress unpopular activity and unpopular speech," Keshen said in a recent interview.

Doyle said he thinks officials found his Bigfoot stunt, and the publicity it generated, tacky for a mountain revered by the likes of Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

"If your project's not to their liking, you're pushed out or you're delayed," Doyle said last week.

"Spontaneity is at the heart of artistic expression and a regulation that completely stifles spontaneous expression is not narrowly tailored," Keshen wrote in her brief.

But Doyle can't challenge the fairness of the permit requirement when he made no effort to obtain one or have the permit requirement waived, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mavrogeorge argued.

Mavrogeorge said two instances of the fee requirement being waived, once for a charity and once for a picnic of National Guard soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan, were based on good will. Doyle and the NHCLU claim they amounted to "unlawful favoritism."

Source URL:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/291238/bigfoot-takes-free-speech-claim-to-high-court

 

 

Concord Monitor                                                             October 5, 201

NHCLU files suit over sex offender law

Group challenges lifetime registration

 

By Karen Langley

Monitor Staff

 

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union yesterday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law requiring sex offenders to register:

People convicted of sexual offenses are required to register with the state police and periodically report in person to the local police. The state police maintain a public list of sex offenders with identifying information, such as the offender’s name, physical description, address and convictions. Sex offender in the most severe category are required to register for life.

In a lawsuit filed yesterday in Merrimack Superior Court, the civil liberties group argued that the law violates a constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws. It also argues that lifelong registration interferes with the due process rights of sex offenders who have no opportunity to show they no longer pose a threat.

The suit was filed on behalf of a Hillsborough County man who pleaded guilty in 187 to two counts of sexually assaulting his step-daughter, then a minor. The man, who was not named in the suit, served his sentence and completed rehabilitative counseling, according to the suit. In 1990, the court ruled that he had been rehabilitated and terminated his sentence and probation.

Two years later; state lawmakers enacted a law requiring sexual offenders to confidentially register with the state and report to the police. In 1993, they expanded the law so it applied to sexual offenders who completed their sentences since January 1988, a group that included the petitioner.

The suit describes a progressive expansion of reporting requirements and decline of confidentiality. Lawmakers again changed the law in 1996 by allowing the police to share registry information, previously confidential, with schools and other organizations that dealt with children.

In 1998, they repealed a part of the law that allowed offenders to keep their information private by showing they were a low risk of committing another offense. In 2002, lawmakers allowed the public to view the sex offender registration website, and in 2006, they expanded reporting requirements to include information like Social Security numbers and contact information for landlords.

The suit says that the petitioner was told of the registration requirement in 2004 and has complied with it. Today he is disabled and living in a boarding house, according to the suit. The suit says he applied to live in subsidized housing but was rejected because of his lifetime registration as a sex offender.

In 1994, New Hampshire courts found that the registration law did not violate the state constituion’s prohibition on retrospective laws because the law served a regulatory purpose—allowing the police to share information about the whereabouts of sexual offenders—rather than a punitive purpose. In its suit, the NHCLU argues that the law now goes beyond informing the police and instead punishes offenders, some for crimes they committed before the law took effect.

“The cumulative impact of the Act’s requirements is to punish, humiliate, shame and subject Petitioner to public condemnation for two offenses he pled guilty to almost 25 years ago, and for which he then successfully completed two years of sexual offender counseling,” the suit says.

        “If the list if full of people who committed

       crimes 20 or 30 year ago but still have to register,

         that  doesn’t give them realistic information.”

 

Barbara Keshen

                       Staff attorney for NHCLU

The suit also argues that people on the list should have a chance to show evidence that they do not pose a threat in the community.

                

The stat sex offender registry now includes more than 2,000 people, said Barbara Keshen, a staff attorney for the NHCLU. She said some of th entries do not help parents who want to warn their children of danger.

“If the list is full of people who committed crimes 20 or 30 years ago but still have to register, that doesn’t give them realistic information,” she said.

                  __________________

 

Plaintiffs wanted!

Do you live in a condominium? Do you have a message that you would like to promote – Free Tibet!, Ethanol is Stupid!, Whirled Peas! -but your condominium association prevents you from displaying signs or flags?

NHCLU is looking for plaintiffs to challenge the newly enacted Flag Display section of the Condominium Act. That act makes it unlawful for a condominium associated to prohibit the flying of the United States flag from a private residence, including a condominium. However any other flag or display can still be banned.  By this act, the government is compelling private entities to promote a particular message. NHCLU believe this violates the First Amendment and we would like to challenge it. If you are willing to serve as a plaintiff in such a law suit and would like additional information, contact our staff attorney Barbara Keshen.