Kerry DoughertyGood news. Raymond "Boots" Riley remains a free man.
No more lemon-sucking scolds to harass him for using naughty words in Norfolk.
No more cops to thumb through arcane statutes in an attempt to find a crime.
Perhaps you heard. That preposterous profanity charge - the one that never should have been brought against the California rapper in the first place - was dismissed.
And Norfolk is no longer the laughingstock of all who take the First Amendment seriously. (OK. I may be wrong about that. I suspect some are still snickering at us here in southeastern Virginia.)
In case you've forgotten, Boots Riley appeared at the Bayou Boogaloo & Cajun Food Festival in June. The performer - known for his blue language and Marxist-tinged lyrics - took the stage on a Saturday night and uttered a double-barreled bad word. Several times.
Festival organizers had a case of the vapors, pulled the plug, and demanded the police charge Riley with a crime.
"I felt it was severe enough and offensive enough," Norfolk Festevents' Karen Scherberger said last month when I asked why she'd involved the cops.
Now it's Festevents' turn to sweat. Riley's in Japan and, according to his manager, hasn't ruled out legal action of his own.
"We're going to talk about what to do when he gets back," said Ken Erlick, in Portland, Ore. "... the ACLU is interested."
Great. Just what we need. More bad publicity.
Erlick said he and his client were concerned about the way the incident had been portrayed in the media. In particular, that some images showed children running around in the sunshine. Erlick said the F-bomb incident occurred at night, when Town Point Park had basically "turned into a drunk tank."
Erlick added that anyone familiar with Riley's music would know that the singer uses expletives, "mainly to provoke positive thought." Honestly. You couldn't make this up.
Had festival organizers requested that Riley keep it clean, he would have complied, Erlick said. No one asked the singer, Erlick insisted. Officials say the band playing with Riley was warned about bad language.
Look, I don't like defending profanity-riddled rap music. I would have dashed to my car if I'd been in the audience.
I do, however, defend the Constitution, even when it protects the rights of people who do things I don't approve of, such as cussing in public.
Everyone knows that when it comes to profanity, obscenity and the First Amendment, entertainers and artists have lots of leeway. Ticketing a performer for blurting out a couple of bad words was a fool's errand.
Jack Cloud in the city attorney's office asked a judge to dismiss Riley's charge. He did not return my calls Wednesday, but he was quoted in news reports saying that the state statute had been ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals.
Riley's manager said Cloud had been in touch last week to tell the rapper that his presence would not be required in court and that the charge would be dropped.
The question now is whether Riley is willing to drop it.
Kerry Dougherty, (757) 446-2306, kerry.dougherty@cox.net
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
First Amendment not absolute....
You can not yell fire in a crowded movie theater or say I'm going to kill the president for example. Obscenity is a bit of a gray area as the op pointed out is "based on community standards." I find it hard to believe the entire crowd was adult and drunk as some would like you to believe. Common sense says there were some children there and not all the adults were drunk. Of course common decency says you should watch what you say in public especially around children. yes, I have cursed, but it was in reaction to something that happened (example seeing an accident and saying "holy (poopoo)" and not a planned thing.
First Amendment doesn't protect obscenity
Miller vs California (1973) is one example where the court upheld the right of the federal government and state to prohibit obscenity based on "prevailing community standards". The original news articles pertaining to the Raymond Riley profanity case stated that the offense took place when families with children were present. In my opinion, only perverted minds would consider the use of the F-word in the presence of children anything other than a crime worthy of punishment in a civil court. Perhaps justice would be better served if the specific individual responsible for bringing such trash to the community was held accountable. I, for one, take the First Amendment very seriously. I also consider public conduct/language around children a serious issue.
Precedence is important and I hope that Boots does civic duty
It must be dealt with, this control of the establishment whom have been able, on countless time, to dominate and control, regardless to the constitution.
Some may say, this has nothing to do with the infractions of the Bush administration but it is indeed a microcosm to the greater issue of tarnishing the rights of citizens in several instance. We have spent 8 years with wire taps, contradictions with prisoners thought to be terrorists, hypocritical stances of executive branch and these years of infringement have moved us further from the constitution then perhaps in our entire history. Though this may seem small potatoes to these issues, all examples must be dealt with accordingly because these rights are precious. These are the ideals that supposedly separate us from others. However, aside from the second amendment in regards to rights to bear arms it seems that in our Hampton-Road
responsible adults
Law or no law, responsible adults know when and where profanity is or is not appropiate. It's very easy for a responsible adult to check out a crowd or survey the immediate crowd around you. I'm not so sure Boots is a responsible adult.
Hypocrite
Ok, so when it comes to VT, your attitude is to hell with the Constitution, publish everything whether it's subject to privacy laws or not, but the next day you say you defend the constitution even when it covers people who do things you don't like. You also go running to court to testify against a guy who showed his wee wee in a picture you found in the parking lot (of course I agree he should be in jail), but then you defend Abercrombe and Fitch over naked butts in their window. Which is it Kerry? Which version of the Constitution do you defend? The one under glass in DC, or the one that you strike and edit for your own personal bias? Don't get me wrong, some of the time I actually share your personal opinions, but when it comes to your commentary in general, you are totally inconsistent in what you spout off about. Just pick a steady course Kerry, like kittens in a jar and losing weight. and quit saying thin