Anti-picketing bill is a self-erasing exercise in futility

We often think of laws as being etched in stone — like the Ten Commandments.

But there is a bill in the Nevada Legislature that is written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is self-erasing.

Assembly Bill 356 opens by declaring:

“Sec. 2. A person shall not damage, injure, harm, threaten or maliciously disrupt the lawful activities of any business or any employee or representative of that business with the intent to coerce or intimidate that business.

“Sec. 3. A person shall not intentionally or recklessly destroy, mark or damage the property or merchandise owned by or in the control of any business.”

Damaging, injuring, harming and marking are already against the law, so what’s the point in piling on another law?

Then the bill wipes out the coerce and intimidate aspects altogether by stating:

“Sec. 4. The provisions of sections 2 and 3 of this act are not intended to infringe upon or impede any lawful exercise of rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, lawful picketing …”

Lawful picketing is coercion and intimidation … and free speech. AB356 is a self-erasing law. It says thoy shalt not in one breath and thou mayest in the next.

We understand that Assembly member Michele Fiore is trying to find some way to curb the unsavory practices of union picketers, especially on the Strip where tourists are often the targets of vile language, but blocking traffic and doing physical harm are already illegal, though perhaps not aggressively enforced, and threatening violence is assault, also a crime. But vile language is protected speech.

If laws can’t prevent burning American flags or block protestors at the funerals of soldiers, they can’t stop union picketers from calling tourists scabs.

This bill is an expression of frustration and an exercise in futility.

Police arrest union picketers on the Strip. (AP photo)





13 comments on “Anti-picketing bill is a self-erasing exercise in futility

  1. Vernon Clayson says:

    nyp thinks this is heinous and noteworthy because it involves a Jew, where’s his thoughts on Muslim killings and attempted killings over slights, real or imagined,about Islam, where’s his thoughts on blacks killing police officers over slights, real or imagined? DUH !

  2. nyp says:

    who says I’m condemning it? Hell, if someone spiked my Bloody Mary with Clamato, I too would be tempted to use my Peacemaker on them.

  3. Steve says:

    If you are not “condemning”,
    then why post it?

  4. nyp says:

    Public service. News you can use.

  5. Steve says:

    If you want to strengthen the conservative view of the second, I s’pose.

  6. Athos says:

    As far as our “lawmakers” are concerned, “Stupid is as stupid does”. Tyranny isn’t an exclusive progressive birthright, is it?

    As to Montana shootings: petey, you really out to get out into the “fly-over” part of our great country. Of course, you’d better keep your commie comments to yourself, son!

  7. Athos says:

    Or pack your own “heat”, and be prepared to use it.

  8. Rincon says:

    It’s the same broken record. Liberals think a prohibition on guns will work, even though they recognize that drugs and alcohol can’t be controlled by that method. Conservatives, on the other hand, are so busy defending gun owners, they essentially refuse to acknowledge that we have a problem, or when they do, their answer is “more guns” as if it would make a dent. With so much focus on guns, we neglect the user. Children living without a father in the home are 11 times more likely to exhibit violent behavior, but somehow, no one seems to think that tells us anything. Europe, Japan and Australia, among others, show that much lower murder rates are attainable. We somehow don’t seem to think that we can learn from them. Another example of American arrogance.

  9. Winston Smith says:

    If you’re taking innocent life, whether with a gun, knife or rock, you’re an asshole. To use violence, besides self-defense, is deplorable, and illegal, and pointing out every time an asshole uses a gun illegally is hardly a reasonable argument against the Second Amendment, which asserts the bearing of arms in self-defense as a natural right.

    ‘their answer is “more guns” as if it would make a dent.’

    Two words: Kennesaw, Georgia.

    Conservatives have been lamenting the lack of fathers for decades, and suggesting that the welfare system is, at least, partially to blame.

  10. nyp says:

    As I said, if someone dares to put Clamato in my Bloody Mary they have forfeited their right to life.

    Same goes with bacon bits in my frappucino.

  11. Steve says:

    Now HERE is a some REAL useful news surrounding the Second amendment and it even strengthens private property rights!
    9-0 SCOTUS…we don’t see that very often.

  12. Rincon says:

    The FBI gave government a bad name on this one. Its stance was ridiculous. Sometimes, the court gets it right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s