Comments

1

"Many members of these two generations will never own land, and our environmental impact needs to be policed? K."

What? You do not need to "own land" to exploit and pollute it, dipshit. You exist on it. You consume on it. You are responsible for caring for out air water as much as anyone else.

The fact is all of us are responsible. Did you think you got some get out of jail card and released from your responsibilities to not polluting because your generation got fucked over by the snowballing economic unsustainability? That's not how it works.

Shit is hard. But it's not an excuse for you to be an asshole.

2

Sarah Palin, Godmother of the Insurrection, losing her race for US House should merit a mention.

3

@1 - Can't you make a point without being an asshole yourself? No need to be so nasty to Hannah. You should apologize.

4

@1 You miss the point of the "Hannah" performance art collective. Today's scene is based on "The problem is with Somebody Else".

It's never the activist who is the problem, you see. It's Somebody Else. What I Do is Trivial, compared with what They DO. Much like the professional equity activist who comes from a gated community that got them into an Ivy, and thus into the political class, They Are Not the Problem. It's these New Kids, who should be stopped From Opportunity Hoarding. Look over there!

Really, the collective has been firing on all cylinders lately.

5

"Any person who uses menace, force, threat, or any unlawful means towards any voter to hinder or deter such a voter from voting." RCW 29A.84.620

Given that is how voters have, through democratic choices about who they elect, defined "voter intimidation," of course putting up those signs is no crime.

No charges was the democratic outcome. Democracy works. The Stranger is urging an anti-democratic standard be applied to the investigation.

6

I have no opinions to offer today.

7

"...feeling an anti-anti-millennial sentiment...as I age...pissed off me and my millennial elders."
Awwwww, poor baby canna dish, butta canna not take it? Icky poo poo?

"Poland...claims...Germany owes them $1.3 trillion for WWII...reparations."
Here we go!! I'm half Polish & half Irish and I've been saying for years that reparations is nonsense, reparations for US slavery should never happen, it was a mistake to pay it to the Japanese interned during WWII, and people should read some history and learn that just about everyone in this world has been conquered & enslaved, so it's all a wash. So now that my Polish relatives are at it, I'm waiting for my Irish relatives to demand reparations from the British. Then we can move on to the Ukrainians demanding it from Russia (Stalinist Russia. Reparations from Putin's Russian can be a whole nother circus.) Then the victims of Pol Pot. Then the Jews looking for it from the Egyptians. And finally Able from Cain, or maybe Eve from the snake. Reparations is all a bunch of horseshit. @1 is making the same logical case about pollution.

@2, In addition to never hearing from or about Trump ever again, we do well when we never hear about The Crazy Witch of the North again.

@3, Poor baby Hannah.....Icky poo poo.....not be meanie man to poor woman who can't take care of herself. Raindrop care for all poor second class women. (For the spiritually challenged, that's sarcasm.)

@5, Voter intimidation is NOT free speech. Not to mention that all the signs these idiots put up ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY are littering at the very least. I've got to look at the signs on THEIR property, but I shouldn't have to look at signs on MY (public) property.

@6, On the 7th day he rested. Bless you.

8

Mary Peltola is awesome! I donated to her campaign, which was considered a major long-shot, and she won!!! Donate some munnie to her campaign for the November election. This is the first time that a Democrat has won that office in Alaska in half a century.

https://www.marypeltola.com

Don't believe the oligarch-owned media lying to us that the Republinazi takeover of Congress is a done deal. We can do this--VOTE.

Sarah Mean and Stupid, the Queen of the Danged, will be grifting back on the ballot in November. She'll have to be defeated again, unfortunately.

9

@5 The signs were clearly intended as a threat with the aim of vote suppression. If it happens again it absolutely should be treated as a crime.

Regarding "sweep," I believe the current bureaucratically preferred term is "cleanse."

10

Just imagine some briar wokester growing blackberries in a 5 gallon Kikkoman soy sauce bucket in their apodment.

12

@7, Voters, through who they have elected to write the definition of criminal "voter intimidation", have not defined that crime as putting up a sign that says a site is being filmed or monitored. Until voters, decide to do so, using any other standard than the one adopted by democratic means is undemocratic.

Nobody has an expectation of privacy or being unobserved in public.

No voter can be criminally intimidated until actions meet the democratically enacted definition of that crime.

I didn't realize you were so against democracy.

@9 and @11, The terms in the law have definitions in other parts of the law for all the words used in the law. (E.g. "Menace"). Voters elected the legislatures that determined those definitions. Current voters have not demanded that they be rewritten or defeated candidates that refused.

Judges in Washington State are elected. Once they resolve alleged ambiguity of a law or its application in a court case, that is precedent. Voters haven't bounced a Judge for rulings in this area either. Juries don't get to use their own, jury by jury definitions. They are supplied to them by the Legislature and Courts.

By their conduct, voters are agreeing to let current definitions and precedents stand.

Democracy in action. If you don't like the outcome, you can run, put up, and elect a candidate that will change the definition of the crime. Until you prevail, current law stands.

13

@7-3 - yeah, yeah. I just don't get the hostile, gratuitous, flippant trigger-happy, hate-filled spewing at the drop of a hat despite the umbrella of sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek, snark.

It will never be "cool". After all, the tone police and the woke should pair well.

15

@14, Who elects Appellate judges in the State of Washington? Voters! So if voters don't agree with how they apply the law, they can vote against them. Yet they don't.

Voters speak on Appellate Rulings. Democracy in action.

16

“Under the new tough-on-crime City Attorney, Ann Davison, the Seattle Community Court, which tries to help people out instead of throwing them in jail, is seeing a surge in referrals.”

I doubt she was surprised at all, let alone to the extent the Stranger has implied. The logic is simple: if the City Attorney’s office charges no one with any crime, then there can be no diversions to Community Court. If the City Attorney’s office charges only a small fraction of suspects with crimes, then there may be room in Community Court to divert the same persons over and over and over again, even though they do not change behaviors and so keep getting arrested. If the City Attorney’s office charges a large enough fraction of suspects with crimes, then there may be room in Community Court only for persons who might actually change behaviors, and thus not re-offend. Therefore, if City Attorney Davison wanted to restrict the diversionary program to those considered most likely not to re-offend, then charging a larger number of suspects with crimes would be a good way to do it.

18

Davison's job is prosecutor and you are mad at her for...prosecuting?
If these diversion programs are as great as the stranger claims them to be, then she is doing a far better service to everyone than her worthless predecessor just by shear number of people actually gaining access to the programs rather than being tossed back out on the street with no help and also no prosecution.
Do you guys even read this shit before hitting publish?

19

@12, I'm not talking about whatever law you (plural) are talking about. I don't care if someone is filming the drop boxes. I'm talking about the sphincters who drop signs wherever they please the same way people let their dogs shit all over. And unless I'm mistaken, intimidation is generally a crime, even if not under the law you reference. Though, as it likely requires intent, and considering your other points, who could prove it?
You obviously have no idea of my political values & I wouldn't avail myself of your jailhouse lawyering skills even if I was locked up with you.

@13, I had my account deleted because once, after I read a column long rant by Jas about some birthday or jubilee for the Queen of England, where she opined that the 100 year old lady, who has spent her entire life serving her country, was a dirtbag for whatever reason, I called Jas a POS......after Jas had spent her entire column assassinating the character of the Queen. Not that I really care that much about the queen. But attacking a 100 yr old woman who has dedicated her entire life to public service, no matter her mistakes or perks?? So SLOG writers can call anyone, including 100 yr old women anything they please, but 3 words by a reader will get their account deleted? IMHO, if the SLOG writers can dish it out, they should be able to take it. AND THEY CAN'T.

20

@12, Intimidation is not a crime unless its a credible threat of actual violence. Mere words are problematic under court precedent (e.g. the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the speaker wasn't being satirical, engaging in hyperbole, making a political statement, etc. When you have signs, you have mere words. Where is the credible threat of actual, not speculative, violence from those words?

You are correct that it might be construed as littering; however, a defense, that the prosecution would have a hard time overcoming is that it's a political statement against the government, a commentary against drop boxes, election security, et. al. etc. Lastly, if it's not a felony, or a narrow band of traffic offenses, Washington cops are generally prohibited by the State's Constitution and Law, from arresting or citing for misdemeanors and civil infractions unless the cop personally witnesses the crime for infraction. So assuming there was a case to be made by a prosecutor (next to impossible), its never gonna get that far because there isn't going to be an arrest or citation to bring it in front of a judge.

21

@12: "Nobody has an expectation of privacy or being unobserved in public."

When I went to drop my ballot off, there was an election worker (complete with reflective vest and ID card) standing near my local drop box. I actually felt comforted. My ballot would be safe, unmolested by ne'er do wells or commingled with a suitcase load of questionable submissions.

Were my intentions to be something other than depositing a legitimate ballot, I suppose the presence of surveillance might have been disconcerting, possibly even threatening. But no. I felt completely at ease.

22

@18 "Davison's job is prosecutor and you are mad at her for...prosecuting? "

She's the City Attorney. She's not the the City Prosecutor like other cities have. While her office oversee's prosecution of misdemeanors, her direct job is defending the city against law suits and to give the city legal advice.

24

@22 oof. indeed, my mistake thank you for clarifying

25

@23, It's not a crime to lie in print. Even if it had changed someone's behavior, the threat must be credible.

For example, there is case law in Washington State from Division II, Court of Appeals where someone called because they felt threatened by a person carrying an AK 47 style semi-automatic weapon down the middle of their street. The case got kicked because the COA ruled that its legal to carry such a firearm in public. The complaining party had not articulated that they had been specifically threatened with that gun. "The fact that some might be alarmed, is in an of itself, not evidence that alarm was warranted." You have to have a specific action that would allow a reasonable person to believe they were under threat.

So if the people dropping off ballots weren't specifically threatened, then there was no intimidation. I.e. "If you drop your ballot here, I'll beat your ass."

BTW, everything about your voter registration is public. Whether you voted or not is public. Who you voted for is the only thing that is not. So videotaping who dropped off a ballot, or stating that you are doing so, isn't giving anyone anything they couldn't get through a public disclosure request to the County. Misstating or lying about the law, while threatening to videotape or videotaping, certainly isn't. If someone wanted to go after someone for voting, there are much easier ways to do that other than videotaping, or threatening to. Just because someone felt uncomfortable, alarmed, etc. doesn't meet the legal element requiring that such alarm be reasonable.

A thick skin is required in a 1st Amendment world.

26

@23, It's not a crime to lie in print. Even if it had changed someone's behavior, the threat must be credible.

For example, there is case law in Washington State from Division II, Court of Appeals where someone called because they felt threatened by a person carrying an AK 47 style semi-automatic weapon down the middle of their street. The case got kicked because the COA ruled that its legal to carry such a firearm in public. The complaining party had not articulated that they had been specifically threatened with that gun. "The fact that some might be alarmed, is in an of itself, not evidence that alarm was warranted." You have to have a specific action that would allow a reasonable person to believe they were under threat.

So if the people dropping off ballots weren't specifically threatened, then there was no intimidation. I.e. "If you drop your ballot here, I'll beat your ass."

BTW, everything about your voter registration is public. Whether you voted or not is public. Who you voted for is the only thing that is not. So videotaping who dropped off a ballot, or stating that you are doing so, isn't giving anyone anything they couldn't get through a public disclosure request to the County. Misstating or lying about the law, while threatening to videotape or videotaping, certainly isn't. If someone wanted to go after someone for voting, there are much easier ways to do that other than videotaping, or threatening to. Just because someone felt uncomfortable, alarmed, etc. doesn't meet the legal element requiring that such alarm be reasonable.

A thick skin, and a little knowledge, is required in a 1st Amendment world.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.