The thing is, nothing in the report contradicts the literal reading of the first sentence, and the words joining together the later sentences and clauses all clearly structure the report as intending to support that initial sentence.
Perhaps you’ll never be convinced of this. But we agree on something: The report is not written well. What I mean by this is that, read literally, it reasons ludicrously for a ludicrous claim which it is almost certain the FBI didn’t intend to make. This is important because, though it’s not a legal document, it’s in some sense a “quasi-legal” document as it clearly is meant to have implications for practice in a law-enforcement context. It’s for this reason that the literal reading has quite a bit more importance than it would for other kinds of documents. When putting policies and procedures into effect (which it seems this document is intended to help shape), mind-reading doesn’t cut it. One has to go with the literal reading of the text.
It’s the opposite of substantive. The thread started with a lot of hysterical proclamations and at this point it’s become a very, very long nitpick. As I see it, the argument is about whether we should apply common sense in reading something, or if we should read it in the most literal posible manner and then argue about how everything else could technically support the non-common sense literal reading even when it repeatedly undermines that reading.
That’s not clear at all, and I think it’s the second-most sensible interpretation of what’s actually written. Nothing contradicts “Juggalos are a hybrid gang,” but then again, they also don’t take the time to say “Not all bikers are in gangs.” This is a report about actual gang activity, not a general report on the military or ICP fandom or motorcycling, all of which have connections to gangs in some instances. It’s about the gangs in particular.
Actually wait. Does the article talk about “bikers” as a group too? If so, that changes everything. (Well, it changes something anyway.)
ETA: I just checked–the answer is no, it doesn’t, so never mind that.
Don’t you think that if they put out a report on bikers, they wouldn’t say “Bikers, a loosely organized hybrid gang…”? Wouldn’t they be more clear about that?
A post of mine has gone missing. What I said there was:
In legal and (perhaps especially) in quasi-legal contexts, the question of how to read literally and how literally to read is very important and substantive, in that it has robust implications for policy and practice.
“Second-most-sensible interpretation” is a far more positive evaluation than I was expecting.
Looks like you accidentally edited it away and replaced it with the “Actually wait.” Post. I’d put that text back, but you’ve successfully quoted the content.
Had too many other things going on to post this in a timely manner, but about 11 days ago now the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Juggalos do in fact have standing and their lawsuit against the FBI has been reinstated.
Here is a piece on Mimesis Law has a piece about this decision: Fucking First Amendment Standing, How Does It Work? (I love that the URL for a story about people in whiteface clown makeup looks like “Mimes Is Law”, btw.)
Kevin Underhill also wrote about this at his blog, Lowering the Bar.
The Plaintiff-Juggalos* were able to show to the court’s satisfaction that they were injured, that the FBI’s labeling of them as a “hybrid gang” was directly responsible for the injury, and that the injuries could be redressed.
Ken White, who many of you might know from Popehat.com, wrote my favorite article about this for Mimesis Law with the awesome title: Fucking First Amendment Standing, How Does It Work? (I love that the URL for a story about people in whiteface clown makeup looks like “Mimes Is Law”, btw). I think he did a terrific job of summing things up. and I particularly like his focus on this:[
](mimesislaw.com)All in all, a very good decision by the Sixth Circuit, I think.
*Seriously, that’s what the Sixth Circuit decision calls them, right on page 2 in the Overview.
Aye, the blogs (and the Sixth Circuit) do seem to be having a bit of laugh about the Juggalos. It’s hard not to when you see how over-the-top they and their fans can be, but by and large, ICP are serious artists with an immense fanbase. They truly take their endeavours seriously. Their annual Gathering of the Juggalos draws nearly 20,000 fans every year, their total record sales over a 23-year career (23 albums, 27 if we count Dark Lotus albums) are in the millions of units; and their Record Company, Psychopathic Records has 30 employees and more than $10,000,000 in annual revenue.
So they are kinda funny, but they are no joke at the same time.
Sorry, it has been a long time since I’ve been in this thread and I was surprised to see it pop back up. I don’t want to make any unfounded assertions in my threads and if I’m wrong on some point of law please fill me in. IIRC you are a lawyer in real life, am I correct?
I should clarify that I’m Canadian and the intricacies of these particular fates are meaningless to me in the long run except that I should remember not to wear my ICP shirts if I ever visit the US. Perhaps this is where my confusion regarding the laws surrounding this comes from. I am pretty sure in Canada you can have extra charges added in for committing a crime as a gang member versus doing the same thing as a regular citizen. I am pretty sure the US has similar legislation for terrorism - fire a gun inside a mall, get a mischief charge. Fire a gun inside a mall while screaming “Allahu Akbar” get thrown in Guantanamo (exaggeration for effect intentional). That’s what I am wondering about. If you get pulled over for a broken taillight and the American Lawman sees your Hatchetman tattoo and recognizes it as a “gang” symbol, are you then in extra trouble because of that? The cases ICP’s lawyers have presented seem to indicate that these Juggalo-Plaintiffs have suffered exactly that fate - extra hassle that they would not have suffered otherwise. It seems random and arbitrary and very much against the spirit if not the letter of the US Constitution. Is it a slippery slope or is it precedent?
The cases that caused the Sixth Circuit to decide that the Plaintiff-Juggalos (love that term!) had suffered harm were cases where the police had specifically stated that they had singled out individuals & vehicles due to their ICP stickers, shirts, etc. BECAUSE the FBI had labeled them a “hybrid gang”. It was the showing of direct cause-and-effect that was important.
Here is the allegation (from the Sixth Circuit decision):
I won’t quote them all here, but if you look at pages 5-7 you’ll see instances of detention (one guy lists 3 separate encounters with police), a guy who was denied entry into the US Army, even after he spent a lot of money to re-cover his ICP tattoos, and that the band was denied a venue due to police interference. All of those incidents are alleged to have happened because police considered ICP and/or Juggalos to be a gang with the FBI designation specifically referred to in many of them.
As I kept posting 3 years ago, by the criteria used to label Juggalos a gang, lots of other groups could be labeled a gang. Essentially, any group not in favor with the FBI could prolly be labeled a gang. Heck, the whole civil rights movement would have been a gang, since they conspired to block traffic. Deadheads would be a gang, since they use and distribute drugs, often across state lines.
Letting this stand would be a terrible precedent and I commend ICP for standing up and saying it’s “flat-out ridiculous and un-American bullshit”.
