This curious case of the nude cyclist charged with public indecency may draw some heat. Judge Jerome LaBarre was the lucky (ha!) trial judge who drew this case.  Judge LaBarre reportedly ruled that 21-year old Bobby Hammond’s nude bike ride was protected speech and thus not punishable.

There may be a lot of ranting about this case. We’re going to hear about “activist judges.” Wouldn’t surprise me if some outraged citizens even targeted Judge LaBarre for ouster when he is up for re-election. It doesn’t help that young Mr. Hammond hardly sounds like a deep political protester.

Several things that are important and not widely understood. First, the Oregon Constitution’s guarantee on free expression is stricter that the free speech clause found in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.  In Oregon, for example, the State constitution protects nude dancing as free expression. The judge’s task in this setting is to interpret the facts and apply the law. When we’re talking about constitutional rights like free speech, sometimes the results won’t be pretty to all.

The other thing is that regardless of Mr. Hammond’s lack of articulation in the linked radio interview, the Portlland-area bike community has actively “spoken” or protested on bikes for years. This includes annoying rides that tie up traffic. (”Annoying” is defined as something that bothers me, a middle aged guy who drives, walks and cycles.) The nude rides have also been part of the general protests against car culture.

But the most important thing about all this is that Judge LaBarre did exactly what any principled judge should do. He made a ruling based upon constitutional interpretation that is firmly imbedded in the history and text of the Oregon constitution. It is critcally important that we recognize and honor judges’ independence, even when we don’t agree with them. Because a judge who makes decisions based on political whims is a real danger to our society.

So yeah, on one level, this is another case for the “Keep Portland Weird” advocates and those compilers of zany court cases. But looking deeper, this is case that validates the power of the Oregon constitution and judicial independence. And while I’m not interested in having my family subjected to nude cyclists, it’s the right result.

David Sugerman

I hadn’t been following the nutrition information restaurant posting issue too closely. It seems that a divided county commission took the first step to require chain restaurants to post nutrition information yesterday. I was a bit surprised that Lisa Naito voted against, and Maria Rojo de Steffy initially opposed the measure.

Naito’s  opposition surprised me because she had previously led the charge to remove trans fats from the menu of Multnomah County restaurants. As for Rojo de Steffy, she’s been identified as a former board member of the American Heart Association.  Rojo de Steffy eventually joined the majority, but Naito soldiered on.

The Oregonian didn’t mention the Oregon Restaurant Association, but I assumed that their fingerprints were all over the opposition. This note seems to confirm my suspicion.

The Restaurant Association is often something of a sheep in wolf’s clothing. On a national level, the tobacco industry uses the National Restaurant Association as its surrogate on issues like smoke free bars and restaurant rules. The same is apparently true on a local level.  They also get involved in gambling issues.  The point is that I’m not a fan, and it’s nice to see them lose something that obviously matters to them.

As to the substantive issue, I have to wonder why opponents are so torqued about this one.  We hear a lot about personal responsibility, choice, and free markets from those who advocate less regulation. Cool beans. But see, the only thing that is going on here is that consumers are getting more information so that they can make informed choices. I guess I have to wonder what’s wrong with giving consumers more information.

David Sugerman