anarchy illegal in OK

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pheonix
  • Start date Start date
P

Pheonix

Guest
OSCN Found Document:Display of Red Flag or Emblem of Disloyalty

Any person in this state, who shall carry or cause to be carried, or publicly display any red flag or other emblem or banner, indicating disloyalty to the Government of the United States or a belief in anarchy or other political doctrines or beliefs, whose objects are either the disruption or destruction of organized government, or the defiance of the laws of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the Penitentiary of the State of Oklahoma for a term not exceeding ten (10) years, or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by both such imprisonment and fine.

hahaha this state is screwed up even tattoos were illegal until about 3 years ago
 
So it's legal to be an anarchist, but not to display anarchist symbols. Sounds like this includes flyers and stuff too. Rad.
 
the funny part is alot of people in this state fly the rebel flag on their pick ups
 
Legislatures can make any crazy-ass laws they want, but I can't believe this would stand up to court challenge - it is so clearly a violation of First Amendment rights of free, political, protected speech.
 
I've also found it's illegal to be a Communist and they also have a blasphemy law. the flag burning law is still on the books. It's a $1 fine for using the name GOD, jesus christ, or the holy ghost in vain, and a $100 fine for cursing in the presence of a woman or child under 10 years of age.
 
pheonix said:
I've also found it's illegal to be a Communist and they also have a blasphemy law. the flag burning law is still on the books. It's a $1 fine for using the name GOD, jesus christ, or the holy ghost in vain, and a $100 fine for cursing in the presence of a woman or child under 10 years of age.
Click to expand...

Again, most of these laws are indefensible in modern courts (I believe) as they are not aligned with federally-defined Consitutional protections of free speech and/or separation of Church & State..
 
veggieguy12 said:
Again, most of these laws are indefensible in modern courts (I believe) as they are not aligned with federally-defined Consitutional protections of free speech and/or separation of Church & State..
Click to expand...

I agree that they wont arrest me for these because they don't want the PR nightmare that will follow. but the constitution doesn't really apply to lawmakers anymore (or so it seems) I.E. Arizona's new immagrent law, Bush's Patriot Act. As for seperation of church and state, I don't really think that's possible since lawmakers have to define the difference between right and wrong and their religious belief is what defines that in their own minds. how do you expect them to leave their morality at the door and then make decitions on what is morally right and wrong. the sad truth is that most lawmakers use the bible to define right and wrong cause they themselves have no clue.
 
The situation is that legislatures can pass laws, challenges are taken to courts, and judges - if they decide to hear the case - will decide whether the law stands or is stricken from the books.
In the example you give, of the new immigration-checks by police in Arizona, this has not yet been challenged in court. Ideally, the state Attorney General weighs-in before legislators get behind some law that might not be compatible with state or federal law. This isn't always possible, given that counties and cities can pass laws any time, and with complete ignorance of the standing laws (and their implications).
And the other thing is, a state's Attorney General may think a law can hold up to court challenge and thus you see a state - or county or school board, etc. - listed as a defendant in a civil case.
 
An example of what I'm talking about is the more famous case Roe vs. Wade - "Roe" being an pseudonym, and Wade bein the D.A. for Dallas, because he was the chief law-enforcer of the county.
And any subsequent legislation states make to restrict abortion rights and access must fit within the established allowances of states ability to restrict abortion as set by the Roe case, or they may be overruled upon court challenge.
 
Arizona seems to be competing with Oklahoma for dumbest state. Not that all fifty are not competing pretty much but it's down to those to I think at this point.
 
Damn, I just moved to OK and was planning on flying at least a black flag on the homestead, once I can afford a flagpole.
 
RedJem said:
Damn, I just moved to OK and was planning on flying at least a black flag on the homestead, once I can afford a flagpole.
Click to expand...


I won't worry about it since the rebel flag is also illegal but everyone around here flies it anyways
 
I remember during the "08" Presidential election turning on the TV one night,
and there on the news was a Republican rally in Oklahoma (I think Palin was at it).
The entire crowd was waving red banners. Republicans waving red banners in Oklahoma,
I couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of it all!
 
This is a blatant violation of the first amendment, and i cant see it standing up in court, not to mention being an actual law in the first place.

One call to the ACLU and the state is fucked on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top