f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

Both Halloween and Election Day are coming.  So, we’re not at all surprised that politicians across the nation are once again posing as Heroes in the fight against the Great Sex Offender Trick-or-Treat Bogeyman.  Under the banner of protecting children, they’re restricting the actions of all sex offenders on Halloween, and sending out hordes of probation officers to make sure they stay in their homes (and, in some states, target themselves by posting “No Candy Here” signs), while expecting sheriff and police officials to monitor sex offender compliance on an already especially busy night.

follow-up (October 18, 2010): See the informative weblog piece by David Hess, The New Urban Myth—The Danger of Registered Sex Offenders at Halloween.

update (Oct. 16, 2008): See our post “Maryland Halloween Sign Targets Sex Offenders.”

We’ve covered this topic before at length here at f/k/a.  See our 2005 piece “halloween tricks: pols vs. sex offenders,” and last year’s “hauntingly familiar,” pointing out that there has been no reported Halloween sex crime against trick-or-treaters in the United States (or Canada) since the infamous 1973 Fond du Lac Halloween Murder, when a person who had never been convicted of a sex crime victimized an unaccompanied 9-year-old girl. We’ve said it before:

Halloween Sex Bogeyman laws and restrictions have far too many costs, are far too likely to create a false sense of security among parents, and seem certain to have no real effects, other than giving grandstanding politicians a boost in the polls — and helping marauding bands of adolescent pranksters and more ominous vigilantes find unsympathetic targets.

So, it’s good to see that the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri is challenging a new Missouri law that, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch says:

“convicted sex offenders must ‘avoid all Halloween-related contact with children’ by staying inside their homes from 5 to 10:30 p.m. ‘unless there is just cause to leave,’ such as a job or emergency.

“They also must keep outside lights off and post a sign that says ‘no candy or treats at this residence.

A violation of the law is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail.

update (October 30, 2008): As Michael B. told us in a comment this afternoon, and according to the Associated Press, “Missouri’s sex offender/Halloween law is again enforceable” (Ky3.com, Oct. 30, 2008): “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a one-sentence stay on Thursday, sought by Gov. Matt Blunt and Nixon.”  This means that, despite the injunction issued on Oct. 28th by the Federal District Court against two vague provisions in the law, registered sex offenders must remain inside their homes from 5 to 10:30 p.m. Friday unless they need to work or have a medical emergency, and may not participate in Halloween activities.

update (October 28, 2008): Yesterday, in the ACLU suit, U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the parts of the law that restrict the movement and behavior of registered sex offenders in three Missouri counties, because they are too vague and confusing to sex offenders and to those who would have to enforce the law. However, Judge Jackson would not block sections requiring sex offenders to leave their outdoor lighting off during evening hours and post a sign at their home stating “no candy or treats at this residence.” See “Judge: Parts of law restricting sex offenders on Halloween will not be enforced” (Southeast Missourian, Oct. 28, 2008); “Rules limiting sex offenders on Halloween blocked” (Associated Press, Oct. 28, 2008).  As the SEMissourian reported:

“The first two sections of the law, those barring any registered sex offender from having any Halloween-related contact with children and instructing them to remain inside their home from 5 to 10:30 p.m. Oct. 31, should not be enforced.

. . . ” ‘Halloween is a big deal for children — we all know that. It could be very hurtful for a parent to have to tell their own child, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t take you trick or treating, and we can’t even have a Halloween party at home,’ Jackson said.”

The State’s lawyer, Chris Quinn, who later said the ruling would be appealed, repeated the lie that “Sex offenders pose a risk of reoffending that’s higher than anyone else,” during the hearing.  I’m happy to see that the Eastern Missouri ACLU lawyer intends to keep pushing the broader arguments against the entire law, saying it is not only vague but unfair and unconstitutional additional punishment for people who have served their sentences. “Judge Blocks Rules Limiting Sex Offenders on Halloween” (New York Times, Oct. 28, 2008) I’m still wondering why there is no mention of this case on the ACLU of Eastern Missouri website.

Sen. Brad Lager, R-Maryville, who added the two Halloween provisions to a broader sex offender bill, said he did it because a constituent suggested it.  Here’s how the law is defended by Missouri police, per KOAM TV:

Sgt. Mike Watson from the Missouri State Highway Patrol explains why this new piece of legislation gives parents and kids a better piece of mind when they’re out and about:

“Just like any other activity at night, you want to keep your children safe,” Sgt. Watson says.  “Now, obviously that means you want to keep your children close by knowing where they’re going and paying attention.

“I think part of the information – getting this out lets them know that if there’s a sign in the yard what that does mean.”

[Ed. note: We don’t know whether “giving piece of mind” is just an interesting homonym mistake, or a telling explanation for the law.  For an articulate argument against such laws see the Comment by Mrs. K, a survivor of childhood sex abuse, at the 7-KHQA website.  Meanwhile, a comment at the Sex Offender Issues blog wonders if we should restrict everyone with a DUI conviction to their homes on New Year’s Eve (St. Patrick’s Day, too).]

The ACLU lawsuit argues that the law is an arbitrary and overly-vague bit of ex-post-facto punishment.  The Post-Dispatch reports, in “Sex offenders challenge Mo. law banning them from Halloween activities” (Oct. 8, 2008 ):

The ACLU legal director, Tony Rothert, said offenders can’t be sure of their status even with their own children or grandchildren. He said the terms “Halloween-related contact” and “avoid” and “just cause” are not clear.

The law could even endanger sex offenders, Rothert said, by requiring them to post signs that could make them targets.

“There’s already pranks on Halloween,” Rothert said. “If someone wants to harass you and cause you problems that night, you can’t even turn your lights on.”

A spokeswoman for Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt lives up to his surname, with this illuminating reaction to the ACLU suit:

“We’re not surprised that they’re now suing the governor to make it easier to victimize children.”

Gosh darn, Gov. Blunt, you really are a hero!

.. . good and bad ways to target a house . ..

If you want to spend time and resources to target houses on Halloween, we suggest you support the efforts of Target House for kids with cancer, rather than joining the sex offender vigilantes or following Chubby on his merry rounds.  And, if you are a parent who takes your responsibilities seriously, we strongly urge you to go with your children as they trick-or-treat this year — and don’t leave them alone with mom’s creepy boyfriend or any weird uncles, who are far more likely to molest them than are convicted sex offenders.

afterwords (Oct. 11, 2008): A fifteen year old girl in Newark, OH faces being labelled a “sex offender”  — and therefore missing Halloween activities for years to come — for sending naked cellphone photos of herself (a minor) to other minors. See “Kids who photograph themselves naked are child pornographers and sex offenders in Ohio” (BoingBoing, October 10, 2008)

– by the way: We’ve done a couple dozen posts about restrictions on where sex offenders may reside, starting with this post, which has a list of links to related pieces –

goblins at the door
in the darkness behind them
a cigarette flares

battery weakened
the low, slow laughter
of a demon

……………… by John Stevenson (who turns 60 today; see our post) from Some of the Silence

halloween
i only tell the priest
so much

………………… by ed markowski

. . Roy Den Hollander vs. Ladies’ Night .. ..

peering into
the deep well, two boys
talk about girls

…… by George Swede – The Heron’s Nest

Federal District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum (who’ll be 80 years old next year) bounced avowed anti-feminist Roy Den Hollander from her Manhattan courtroom last Monday — rejecting his claim that bars and night clubs holding ladies’ nights (where women are offered free or reduced-price admission or drinks) are engaged in unconstitutional gender discrimination against males under the Equal Protection Clause.  See “Judge to anti-feminist: Ladies’ night is alright” (AP, Sept. 30, 2008; “Ladies Night OKd by judge” (New York Daily News, Sept. 30, 2008).

• Click for Hollander’s Complaint in the lawsuit, which was brought as a class action on behalf of all similarly-situated males, and related Press Releases.

Judge Cedarbaum reminded Hollander that the 14th Amendment refers to state action not private action and that private clubs — such as defendants A.E.R., Lotus, Sol, China Club, and the Copacabana — can charge patrons whatever they wish.  Hollander had argued that bars with liquor licenses are so heavily-regulated their conduct should be deemed state action.  In response, as Bob Ambrogi notes at  Legal Blog Watch:

“Hollander dismissed the dismissal, calling the judge a feminist and describing her ruling as consistent with the anti-male discrimination embedded in many American institutions. ‘This lawsuit would have put an end to guys financially subsidizing girls to party at nightclubs,’ he told the New York Daily News.”

Of course, claims that Ladies’ Nights are unfair to male patrons are not new.  E.g., see the Baltimore Sun article, “New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Rules Ladies Night Promotions Are Unfair, Men Not Treated Equally,” June 17, 2004, which also tells of a 1995 finding of unfair treatment by the Maryland Commission on Human Relations. (via Consuming Interest blog) Walter Olson has covered the ladies’ night topic for years at Overlawyered.com, and succinctly states the crux of Hollander’s case at Overlawyered.com (Sept. 30, 2008):

“Although lawsuits against “Ladies’ Nights” discounts have prevailed in California and Colorado, . . . Hollander was advancing the relatively unusual argument that the discounts were unconstitutional, which failed when the judge declined to find that they constituted state action; earlier lawsuits against the discounts have generally been based on anti-discrimination statutes, and the case might have come out very differently had those theories been relied on.”

Observers have very different reactions to legal attacks on Ladies’ Nights.  The mates at Antimisandry.com strongly disagree with Judge Cedarbaum.  See “Feminist judge again sides with privileged princesses..” (October 1, 2008).  Meanwhile, Prof. Ann Bartow of the Feminist Law Professor weblog appears to like the Judge’s conclusion, but says the court decision “somewhat creepily notes: ‘The nightclubs said the prices charged to men aren’t so burdensome that they amount to denying them entry and male customers actually might benefit from ladies’ nights because so many women attend’.”  She then muses:

“For an uncomfortable thought exercise, decide how you feel about all this, and then contemplate how your views of this situation might (or might not) change if the admissions or drink price differential was linked to race rather than gender.”

AARP and parents with young children might also worry about Ladies’ Nights law suits.  As The Gothamist, reported in “It’s Ladies’ Night And There’s a Legal Fight” (Dec. 17, 2007):

Deborah Swindells Donovan, a lawyer for Lotus, filed papers arguing that the “frivolous” lawsuit is based on an “ill-conceived theory. [If it] is applied to restaurants, then ‘early bird’ specials for the elderly or promotions allowing children to eat free would be discriminatory on the basis of age.”

tavern’s square tank
fish swimming
in circles

…………… by George Swede – Frogpond XXXI:1 (Winter 2008)

early bird special
rubbing elbows
with a stranger

…… by Yu Chang – Upstate Dim Sum (2004/II)

The professors at The Volokh Conspiracy weblog got a little more precise in their legal arguments when they heard about Hollanders’ suit in July 2007.  Illya Somin argued, presaging Judge Cedarbaum, that ladies’ nights are not unlawful gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  Prof. Somin — blending practicality and the law — also went into some depth explaining why Hollander’s suit would not be an appropriate class action on behalf of men. Under Rules 23 (A)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the court is requred to ensure that the class representative “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”  Somin (correctly) argues:

“Hollander clearly fails to meet this requirement because many of the members of the class in question (“men charged more money or burdened by stricter time restraints than women” at the night clubs in question) actually benefit from these practices.

“At the risk of belaboring the obvious, a key purpose of ladies nights at night clubs is to benefit (heterosexual) men. Many night clubs and bars become relatively unappealing to men because the male-female ratio is too high, reducing male patrons’ chances of picking up a date. By attracting more women [Ed. Note: and helping to ensure they are highly inebriated], ladies’ nights improve the dating odds for male patrons. . . . Many, perhaps the vast majority, of the men in the class Hollender proposes to represent have interests diametrically opposed to the result he seeks to achieve. For that reason, the district court should refuse to certify his proposed class.”

getting drunk
on my arm
the tavern mosquitoes

……. by David G. Lanoue – from Haiku Guy: a novel

A Steve Chapman piece two weeks ago at Reason.com rekindled the debate for many in the blogisphere. In “Ladies’ Nights and the ‘Cancer of Discrimination’” (September 18, 2008) Chapman opines that “When it comes to relations between the sexes, a little common sense goes a long way,” and therefore “it should not be sex discrimination to offer favors to one sex in order to benefit people of both sexes.”  On behalf of a lot of us regular guys, Chapman points out:

“Why, after all, would a bar offer discounts to women? Not because the owner harbors a deep-seated hostility toward men, perpetuating centuries of oppression. People who run such establishments understand that a lot of men patronize taverns partly to meet women, and that they will come more often and stay longer if women are abundant than if they are scarce.”

happy hour
the bartender cashes
my unemployment check

….. by Ed Markowski

In response to those who, like George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, consider Ladies’ Nights no more defensible than charging whites less than blacks [“Whities’ Nights”?], Chapman sensibly says:

“But context is crucial, and relations between the sexes are different from relations between the races. We don’t accept racially segregated restrooms, but we do accept sexually segregated restrooms. All-white colleges would be offensive, but all-female schools are not.

“Charging whites less than blacks would suggest a desire to drive away black customers because of racial animus. Charging women less than men suggests nothing comparable.”

The Reason.com article got Prof. Somin to take up the subject again, in “Should Ladies’ Nights in Bars Be Outlawed Because they Discriminate Against Men?” (Volokh Conspiracy, Sept. 18, 2008).  His new post generated some interesting comments on the law and policy, and Ilya reminds those who were wondering about using federal civil rights statutes that:

“ Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only bans discrimination in places of public accommodation on “the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” It doesn’t forbid sex discrimination. Therefore, ladies nights in bars are perfectly legal, at least so far as Title II is concerned.”

.. Roy Den Hollander is single these days [fair warning: he tends “to be attracted to black and Latin chicks, and Asian chicks’] and goes to clubs.  However, an entertaining in-depth piece in The New Yorker, “Hey, LA-A-A-DIES!” (by Lauren Collins, August 6, 2007), notes:

“[Hollander] was unfazed by the notion that, as a hound dog, his fight to defeminize clubs was perhaps counter to his self-interest.”

Asked in 2007 what he pictured would happen should he win his case, Hollander told The New Yorker:

“What I think will happen,” he said, “is that clubs will reduce the price for guys and increase it for girls. Every guy will have ten or fifteen more dollars in his pocket, which the girls will then manipulate into getting more drinks out of him. If they drink more, they’ll have more fun, and so will us guys. And then when she wakes up in the morning she’ll be able to do what she always does: blame the man.”

closing time  –
her eyes linger
on the rusted fender

…………….. by dagosan

The f/k/a Gang admits that we’ve been out of the Date Bar Scene a long time.  [For example, we’ve never heard of (much less heard) any of the Top Ten Stripper Songs of the Moment, collected with videos at the Crossfade weblog (Sept. 30, 2008)]  So, we hope our younger or hipper readers, including the lawyer denizens of Above the Law, will let us know both how they feel about any ban on Ladies’ Nights (from a legal or policy perspective), and whether the current economics and demographics of the bar scene make Ladies’ Nights an effective tool for bar and club owners.

We’re certain of one thing, after decades of conversations in saloons, classrooms, bedrooms, lawyer lounges, and dining rooms, with  people inside or out of the legal profession: Drafting a law (statute, regulation, or constitutional provision) that puts into practice general principles against discrimination and unfair or unequal treatment is not as easy as many of my relatives and friends seem to think. Almost every attempt to capture the principle of Gender Equality will seem either over-inclusive or under-inclusive to some groups or individuals.

All forms of gender discrimination (treating one gender differently than the other) are not equal or equally insidious.  Some respect valid gender differences, and some — like Ladies’ Nights — represent either insignificant or easily-avoided “injury” to one gender or the other, or in fact benefit many members of both genders.

Turning such differential treatment into a lawsuit does little to help move our society toward gender fairness.  Rather than trying to stop Ladies’ Nights with a lawsuit, I hope disgruntled males (who either dislike “subsidizing” female patrons or simply do not care whether a bar has more females in it) will take their business to establishments not holding a Ladies’ Night.  Of course, if the club with gender-equal prices does very little business on nights when few woman come through the doors, drinks at those places might actually cost more than at the bars with the long Ladies’ Night lines.

Roy den Hollander has more of his gender equality cases pending and planned. Somehow, I’m betting that few of the guys who resent Ladies’ Nights are going to respond to this plea for contributions at his website:

“I’m sure a lot of you guys out there have done well yet have been raked over the coals by females and this culture.  If you want to do something about it, help finance these and future cases protecting your rights.”

mud-spattered pickup-
four dogs watch
the tavern door

. . . by Billie Wilson – The Heron’s Nest (February 2001)

twisting the cap
from another beer . . .
jimmy’s front teeth

….. by ed markowski