By Marc J. Randazza

Boston was home to a "Straight Pride" rally. Unsurprisingly, a bunch of idiots showed up to protest the other idiots, and idiocy ensued. It seems to have all been fixed now. So, here's the story.

Straight Pride Ralliers – Super Happy Fun America – Really? What is the point?

Yes, the straight pride group is really called "Super Happy Fun America." One could say "Super Gay Fun America" would be a synonym?

On one level, I'm ok with these clowns. That's what America is — the right to march down the street proclaiming whatever you want. I'm pretty proud to be a native Masshole – and part of that Masshole pride comes from the fact that Massachusetts was the first state to say "Dood, what the fahk paht of EQUAL do you not fahkin' undastand? If you can get married, so can the queahs if they wanna. Peary-id." See Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).

Some have asked what the purpose of the parade was, but, that is beside the point. I don't like it when someone asks me why I want to have an AK-47. My answer is "because it is my constitutional right to, and that's all I have to say." Same with "why don't you want your home randomly searched?" Or, "why do you need to say this shit?" If the answer is "because it is my Constitutional right," then that's that.

Of course, you know the reason why there was a "straight pride" rally. There's the sorta dumb perspective of someone who does not understand why there might be a need for a "black pride" event, but a "white pride" event sends a really different message. If you're that stupid, go read something else. We're not going to wait for you to catch up.

Ok, fine… if the day comes that gay people kick the shit out of you for liking pussy… and you get arrested for enjoying pussy… and you maybe even get lobotomized or put in a mental asylum, and all of a sudden you're like "what the fuck, I WAS FUCKING BORN THIS WAY, LEAVE ME ALONE!" Yes, then maybe we might need a straight pride rally. Until then, lets chill.

But, the way shit is, we only "need" a straight pride rally because we "need" the entire texture of thoughts and ideas to be put in the marketplace of ideas. So, I wholeheartedly support these clowns right to beclown themselves.

The Counter-Protesters

Idiots too. Yes, I would like to invoke "The Inverse Charlottesville Speech Rule." That is when you say: "There were very dumb people on both sides."

If you want something so pre-discredited as a "straight pride rally" to fail, the best thing you can do is ignore it. Personally, I wish there could have been a very organized counter-protest where they just got 1,000 guys to put on sparkly sequined dresses and feather boas to watch, clap, and just yell "WE LOVE YOU, YOU'RE FABULOUS!" at the entire parade. That would have been a resounding victory for the pro-equality crowd. But, y'know, nobody fuckin listens.

So, those who got angry about this parade? Congratulations -they gave them at least part of their win. But, hey, they get to express their ideas too.

Along with them were the dipshits with the bandanas on their faces – trying to be all "we're just anti-fascists." No, they're fascists. Don't tell me that they're "anti-fascist" just because that is what's in the name. By that measure, The Democratic Republic of North Korea is a "democracy."

The Police

TThey arrested violent protesters, as they should — and maybe as they should teach their counterparts in Portland and Berkeley how to do. But, they also arrested non-violent protesters. And, since I haven't reviewed any of the film of those arrests, I'll give them a pass — civil disobedience might have its place, but you still might have to get a ride to the police station and a little bit of paperwork.

The DA

The Suffolk County DA is sorta awesome in this case, because she tried to drop all the charges against the non-violent protesters. But, things got weird.

Context: She has pledged not to prosecute "minor" crimes like trespassing, shoplifting, drug possession, and resisting arrest. On one level, I like that. I really wish that prosecutors would be a little more discerning in filling the prison pipeline. But, this is just might going to result in the "inverse broken windows" situation. Already, some dumbass decided he could shoplift with impunity because he heard about her policy. (source) Unfortunately for that dumbass, he didn't realize that he was shoplifting in a different jurisdiction. Oops.

The DA decided to drop all the non-violent charges connected to protests at the straight pride rally. I am going to presume she did this for an enlightened reason – that if a citizen is expressing him or herself in a non-violent way, then maybe we don't need to crush them with the weight of the state. I do question whether she would have done the same had the political polarity of the offenders been reversed. But, that's just a question right now. She has not yet had the opportunity to prove me right or wrong. So, let's give her the benefit of the doubt.

The Trial Judges

Every day, prosecutors walk into court and say "your honor, we would like to noll pros these charges." If the defendant does not want the charges to proceed (naturally) and the prosecutor does not either, then that's the end of the story. Even if the prosecutor is doing it for a bad reason (not that she was) then that's that. She is elected by the people. She speaks for the people. The people, through her voice, say "this person's conduct is ok with us, let it go."

But, two judges have said "LOL, no" (paraphrased). They refused to let the state drop the charges. (source)

To make things even weirder, the Prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court to drop the charges. I have to say, I have never seen a case where a prosecutor appealed to try and let defendants off the hook.

And, the decision came down just a few minutes ago. FIGGITY FIRST, MUTHAFUCKAS!

The Decision – Commonwealth v. Roderick Webber

Supreme Court Justice Gaziano just issued his decision – and the result is no surprise – he upheld the prosecutor's discretion to drop the charges.

Primarily, it was a separation of powers issue. Under Art. 30 of the Massachusetts Constitution, the prosecutor has exclusive jurisdiction over whether to prosecute a case or not. (Op. at 3).

The trial court judge apparently resisted because of the Massachusetts Victim's Bill of Rights, which gives a victim of a crime the right to have some input into dropping a case. The judge took the position that the victims were "Super Happy Fun America," whose First Amendment rights were impeded. (Op. at 4) I can sorta see that point, at least from an emotional perspective.

But, as Justice Gaziano pointed out, in a disorderly conduct case, the "victim" is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and not a particular citizen. Same logic applies if you wind up getting in a bar fight and neither of you really want to press charges — you didn't just do something to each other, you also violated the Commonwealth's peace.

But, even if that were not so, the trial court would have still lacked the authority to force the Commonwealth to press forward. Because separation of powers.

Justice Gaziano did specify that there were cases supporting some curtailment of prosecutorial discretion – but only if there is a "scandalous" misuse of authority. You know, bribes or shit like that. Nothing like that seemed to be even remotely going on here – but good to know that there's at least that level of control.

Accordingly, all of the charges that the prosecutor sought to drop are dropped and the arrestee's record is expunged.

Conclusion

All in all, the chips seem to have fallen where they should – but not in a way that doesn't at least make me want to exercise a bit of vigilance.

I like that the state and city did not interfere in the parade, despite the fact that 90% of the community would have loved to see the Super Happy Fun America people rounded up and put in camps. The Commonwealth and the city of Boston seem to have protected the marchers' First Amendment rights.

Protesters got in the way a few times, and the police removed them. This is what the police should do – lest Boston become a "heckler's veto" city like Berkeley or Portland. The District Attorney seems to have done the right thing by using her discretion to only prosecute those who engaged in violent acts. And, while I was initially horrified at what the trial judge did, after reading the Opinion, I see the trial court's position: Think about another time and place — maybe Alabama during the civil rights movement. Imagine a group of locals wants to beat the shit out of some civil rights protesters, and the local prosecutor just says "no crime here." So, yeah, I would like to see some oversight of charges being dropped. But, if we do not respect the separation of powers, the judiciary can get out of control too. The judge is supposed to be impartial – not taking sides.

But, I do hope that if this kind of thing happens again, the politics of those involved is not the determinative factor.

And, y'know … picking Boston as a place to have a parade to stick a finger in the eye of gay rights? Well, that's not exactly how we do it. Nevertheless, I think there's plenty of room in the cradle of liberty for everyone's ideas. I just know which ideas are going to win in the marketplace of ideas. And it isn't Super Happy Fun America's ideas.

Last 5 posts by Randazza