A Stitch in Haste

First the facts:

Charles Littleton says he was only standing up for his rights -- rights he says society continues to lose every day.

That is what got 22-year-old Littleton in trouble. He didn't obey a rule inside Saginaw City Council chambers. That rule is that all men must remove their hats.

Cut to the chase: He got tasered.

We have no video this time, so we cannot draw conclusions about whether he was disruptive or aggressive or whose version of events to believe. It's simply not as cut-and-dry as the UCLA atrocity last week.

But is anyone else seeing what I'm seeing?

all men must remove their hats

Let's assume, arguendo, that a no-hats policy in a legislative gallery is a permissible viewpoint-neutral restriction on expressive conduct. That's a big assumption, given the holding of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (wearing a jacket with "Fuck the Draft" in a courthouse is constitutionally protected conduct). But let's put that aside.

all men must remove their hats

Huh? In the Twenty-First Century a government entity would implement a gender-based restriction on hats? So now we not only have First Amendment difficulties but also Fourteenth Amendment equal protection concerns.

To review: gender-based discrimination is subject to "intermediate-level scrutiny," which means that the discriminatory law must be "substantially related" to an "important" government interest. See, e.g., Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (state cannot restrict alcohol sales to young adult men but not young adult women); cf., U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), (government must show an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for gender-based discrimination).

No court in the country would deem "decorum" a sufficiently "important" government interest, nor deem a gender-based ban to be "substantially related" to that interest. It's quite simple really: Why not just ban all hats? (But again, even that might run afoul of the First Amendment, just not the Equal Protection Clause.)

So, even if young Mr. Littleton was so "dangerous" as to warrant tasering, that is more than offset by the violation of his civil rights. Expect another 42 USC 1983 lawsuit because local hack politicians and bureaucrats don't know basic constitutional law.

(Via Fark.)