The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has handed down a major victory for free speech against the District of Columbia. In Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia, Judge Neomi Rao reversed district court judge James E. Boasberg who dismissed the challenge by pro-life protesters who alleged that they were treated differently from Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters. The selective enforcement of city ordinances gave what Judge Rao called “a monopoly in expressing its views . . . the antithesis of constitutional guarantees.”
The contrast in these cases was raised by a few commentators and sites in prior years. In the summer of 2020, the city allowed thousands of Black Lives Matter protesters to take over streets in D.C. without any permit. The police watched as protesters wrote slogans and slurs on stores, streets, and sidewalks with paint and chalk. No one was arrested.
However, later two pro-life advocates in a protest in front of a D.C. Planned Parenthood facility were immediately arrested when they chalked “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a public sidewalk.
Chief Judge Boasberg previously held that they had no right to challenge the selective enforcement of the laws. They simply had to plead guilty and accept that their views were not given the same official tolerance.
Judge Rao reversed the trial court and said this is precisely what the First Amendment is meant to prevent. The D.C. Circuit noted that such selective prosecution cases are based on one of the hardest claims to prove: “Selective enforcement claims must clear a high hurdle. Because the lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not violate the Constitution, disparate enforcement of a neutral ordinance based on viewpoint is unlawful only when the prosecutorial factors are similar, and ‘unlawful favoritism’ remains the predominant explanation for the government’s targets.”
While reaffirming the ruling under the Equal Protection Clause, the court reversed on free speech grounds:
The First Amendment prohibits government discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. “To permit one side … to have a monopoly in expressing its views … is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees.” City of Madison Joint Sch. Dist. No. 8 v. Wis. Emp. Relations Comm’n, 429 U.S. 167, 175–76 (1976). The protection for freedom of speech applies not only to legislation, but also to enforcement of the laws. This case concerns a constitutional challenge to the selective enforcement of the District of Columbia’s defacement ordinance against some viewpoints but not others.
In the summer of 2020, thousands of protesters flooded the streets of the District to proclaim “Black Lives Matter.” Over several weeks, the protesters covered streets, sidewalks, and storefronts with paint and chalk. The markings were ubiquitous and in open violation of the District’s defacement ordinance, yet none of the protesters were arrested. During the same summer, District police officers arrested two pro-life advocates in a smaller protest for chalking “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a public sidewalk.
…
Viewpoint discrimination, whether by legislative enactment or executive action, violates the First Amendment. “Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking.” Police Dep’t of Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972). We hold the Foundation has plausibly alleged the elements of a free speech selective enforcement claim. We may reasonably infer from the Foundation’s complaint, first, that its members were similarly situated to other protesters who were not arrested and, second, that the District engaged in viewpoint discrimination by enforcing the defacement ordinance against individuals chalking “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” but not against individuals painting and chalking “Black Lives Matter.”
…
The First Amendment prohibits the government from favoring some speakers over others. Access to public fora must be open to everyone and to every message on the same terms. The District may act to prevent the defacement of public property, but it cannot open up its streets and sidewalks to some viewpoints and not others. During the summer of 2020, the District arrested individuals chalking “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on the sidewalk, while making no arrests against the many individuals marking “Black Lives Matter” on sidewalks, streets, and other property.”
Once again, the media virtually ignored the sharply different treatment and this case despite its obvious importance to free speech. Moreover, the D.C. government spent considerable money and time to defend its right to arrest certain protesters while allowing others to commit the same acts.
Here is the opinion: Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia,
The Framers employed “equal protection” in their fundamental thesis. The Constitution exists in equity, the absence of bias or favoritism. In America, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, equity is innate. The problem for dependent and parasitic, illegal alien, foreign invaders was that they lack and may not and could not obtain citizenship legally. No effect or weight may be given to the “Reconstruction Amendments.”
If proponents cannot cite and prove that secession is unconstitutional, every act of Lincoln and his successors was and is illicit, invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, the “Reconstruction Amendment” conceived and promoted by constitutional America’s nemesis and opponent, Karl Marx. Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution, is fully constitutional and is precisely what the American Founders and Framers availed themselves of against Great Britain.
Americans don’t need anyone to hand down their natural and God-given rights and freedom. Americans possessed those rights and freedoms before government was conceived. The Constitution and Bill of Rights handed down a major free speech victory in 1789, namely the revealing of the totality of all natural and God-given rights and freedoms, even as those documents severely limited and restricted government. That victory in 1789 was one that no court or judge has any power to amend, modify, or modify through self-empowering and self-promotional “interpretation.” Americans speak English and do not need an interpreter.
If Americans love freedom so much, why are they always tyrannizing each other?
The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, of which liberal and democrat judges and Justices, lo, these many decades ago, must have been impeached, convicted and removed.
America was founded on the idea of freedom. Many Americans still love freedom. Some Americans see that as quaint and love power far more than they love freedom.
So as long as all viewpoints commit the same vandalism, it’s OK?
How about “your 1st amendment rights are protected, provided that you don’t break the law”?
This is a wet blanket decision by the Court
Not that it’s okay. It’s just not okay for the police to enforce the law selectively against certain viewpoints but not against others.
This is a bit of wet blanket.
Nowhere in this decision does the Court separate lawless from 1st amendment protections.
The decision seems to imply that as long as every viewpoint commits a similar vandalism crime, then the crime is OK.
How about “your 1st amendment rights must be protected – provided that you follow the law? Crazy, I know…
Unanimous decision. The Pro-Lifers wrote in chalk on a sidewalk, as I understand it. If so, would that “vandalism” be temporary and petty versus acts of violence? Was the prosecution an act of Lawfare? The Soviet Union and all authoritarians use the law. See Vol. 1 of The Gulag Archipelago. How many disciples does Lavrentiy Beria have in the USA these days, I wonder?
How about “your 1st amendment rights must be protected – provided that you follow the law?
Who said that? Where did you get that idea? The first amendment does not depend on whether you follow the law. Rather it is the law that is subject to the first amendment, and to the extent that a law, as applied to a specific case, violates the first amendment, that law is invalid. If you allow people to break the law to express a viewpoint you like, then yes, you MUST allow people to do the same thing to express the opposite viewpoint, and yes, it IS perfectly OK for them to violate that “law” which in this case is not a law. They are LEGALLY ENTITLED to such permission, which means that what they did is LEGAL.
The police chose not to arrest certain people who should have been arrested. Therefore, they cannot arrest certain other people who should have been arrested.
I think that’s a conclusion that requires some pretty clear qualifications, and I’m not sure the judge made them. In this case it is limited to speech. Well, graffiti. He doesn’t claim that graffiti is protected speech per se. Rather, it must be viewed as such in this particular instance.
As to what “this instance” requires, what is he saying.
Is he saying that graffiti is allowed within the context of a counter-protest — providing the “other side” is engaging in the same activity and not being arrested. That’s a bit fuzzy. Because the protests were over George Floyd. These “counter-protesters” were not engaged in a different viewpoint with regard to George Floyd. So it wasn’t a counter-protest to that.
So is it the proximity of time then? Wherever and whenever a protest involving defacement happens, and arrests are not made, you may hop on out and deface on any topic that upsets you?
Frankly, I would have used a poster to begin with — regardless of what the “other side” was doing.
Sidewalk chalk washes away. Paint does not. I still think anyone using paint is defacing, anyone using sidewalk chalk is not. End of story.
Perhaps fines for chalk. Arrests for paint? That would require too much thought from the legislators.
In any case, you want to change the defacement ordinance.
The judge is writing that it can be ignored in total. During the next mass D.C. demonstration where this kind of stuff is going on, it looks like I am free to go there and blow-torch on any issue I want under this ruling. I didn’t see anything in the ruling that took damages into account.
It seems to me the facts of the case provide the limitations. BLM had one view on the topic of “black lives matter” and the defendants here had a different view on the same topic (namely, the pre-born black lives matter – which is exactly what they wrote in chalk). So one topic was being discussed (so to speak), but the police enforced the law in relation to one viewpoint on that topic, but not in relation to a different viewpoint on that topic.
It’s analogous to what happened in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993). In that case, the school district created a limited open forum for discussions about family and child raising, but refused to permit a speaker who intended to address that topic from a conservative perspective (surprise surprise). The Court ruled 9-0 that that was unconstitutional.
Well the topic was different. Police brutality versus abortion. The judge doesn’t have the foggiest idea what the 2020 George Floyd protesters thoughts were on abortion.
Well the topic was different. Police brutality versus abortion.
This is getting interesting (conceptually). What was the topic? It can be cast in various ways, some specific and some general. For instance, the topic was the killing of George Floyd. More generally it was police brutality. More generally still it was human rights. More generally still it was injustice (as in “no justice no peace”).
The organization that held the riots chose the name “Black Lives Matter” and in doing so, they cast the issue as black lives mattering. The pro-lifers were responding to that with their own take on the concept that black lives matter, a concept they agreed with, but had their own angle on. So the judge was not off base in finding that the police were engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
Not bad. I don’t know if I can get there. In any case, it seems to me the judge needed to include something more specific and limiting as your comment does. As it is, vague and fuzzy it seems to me.
Either way, I’m not getting that Chris Mathews “tingling feeling up my leg” over the 1st amendment on this one.
The topic doesn’t matter. Either pavement art is legal or illegal. Once the government allows it to express one viewpoint it must allow it for all viewpoints, on any topic whatsoever.
Yes. Well, a proximity of time argument. Or a time-frame argument. During the period of time the ordinance is not enforced on some, it cannot be enforced on anybody — at least with regard to speech.
You can’t paint or chalk graffiti there now, correct?. You could only do it during the summer of 2020, or whenever a similar event arises in the future.
You are correct. Either the other commenters are unaware of the factual distinction or they are authoritarians similar to those described in Vol. 1 of The Gulag Archipelago. They may be disciples of Lavrentiy Beria for all I know. The authoritarian impulse is strong these days among our over-credentialed, undereducated demo, esp many lawyers.
Your logic circuits, such as they are, are the reason the Founders never intended for women to vote.
Also, there is no good reason to provide one man with two votes or to provide a woman with a vote to cancel her husband’s.
It’s all nonsense, and it reduces the importance of the vote to a level that can be easily subsumed by the anarchy created by an anti-American, anti-constitutional communist dictatorship (oops, that happened).
The fact that American women stopped having babies, sufficient to grow and defend the nation, is the reason illegal alien, foreign invaders are increasing in numbers and in votes and are “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America into an unrecognizable communist, foreign country, and banana republic.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Temporary or permanent defacement—it’s all defacement, and it’s all criminal. The public has a right to the enjoyment of aesthetic, structural improvements, and the appearance of public property for one minute or in perpetuity, and private entities have no power to modify or otherwise manipulate, in any way, the aforementioned public property.
Next question.
Once the government allows something that would otherwise be illegal, in order to express one viewpoint, it MUST give the same permission to express any other viewpoint, regardless of the topic.
“Once the government allows something that would otherwise be illegal,…”
– Milhouse
_________
Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and secession was and is fully legal and fully constitutional. Every act of Lincoln and his successors subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of secession is invalid, illegitimacy, illegal and unconstitutional to this day.
The Supreme Court failed to support the Constitution and Americans have been living with the anti-American and unconstitutional consequences of Lincoln’s subversion of law and the Constitution since 1860. Reprehensible slavery must have been abrogated through legal means and methods. Lincoln’s election mandate from the people was a whopping 39.8%.
Lincoln’s actions to commit America to his seizure of all power, tyranny, unconstitutional war, suspension of habeas corpus and comprehensive national suppression and oppression, all in the name of his prime supporter, Karl Marx, have led to the subsumption of America by the global, communist Deep Deep State, which constitutes America’s current status.
To wit,
“They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln,…to lead his country through…the reconstruction of a social world. ”
– Letter of Congratulation and Commendation, Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, 1865
“The police chose not to arrest certain people who should have been arrested. Therefore, they cannot arrest certain other people who should have been arrested.”
That mischaracterizes the issue.
There are two constitutional matters in this case: 1A and 4A.
By permitting one type of expression (BLM), but criminalizing another (anti-abortion), the DC government acted as the arbiter of free speech. That is a violation of 1A.
In addition, by permitting a type of action (BLM slogans), then declaring that same action illegal (anti-abortion slogans), the DC government violated 4A: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This is the type of contradictory government treatment you get, when you conflate “equality” with equality of results (“equity”). That bastardization of equality then wipes out its American meaning: equality *under the law*.
“The police chose not to arrest certain people who should have been arrested. Therefore, they cannot arrest certain other people who should have been arrested.”
That mischaracterizes the issue.
There are two constitutional matters in this case: 1A and 4A.
By permitting one type of expression (BLM), but criminalizing another (anti-abortion), the DC government acted as the arbiter of free speech. That is a violation of 1A.
In addition, by permitting a type of action (BLM slogans), then declaring that same action illegal (anti-abortion slogans), the DC government violated 4A: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This is the type of contradictory government treatment you get, when you conflate “equality” with equality of results (“equity”). That rewriting of “equality” then wipes out its American meaning: equality *under the law*.
“’A Monopoly in Expressing its Views’: D.C. Circuit Hands Down Major Free Speech Victory for Pro-Life Group”
– Professor Turley
_______________
Wrong!
Americans don’t need anyone to hand down their natural and God-given rights and freedom.
Americans possessed those rights and freedoms before government was conceived.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights handed down a major free speech victory in 1789, namely the revealing of the totality of all natural and God-given rights and freedoms, even as those documents severely limited and restricted government. That victory in 1789 was one that no court or judge has any power to amend, modify, or modify through self-empowering and self-promotional “interpretation.” Americans speak English and do not need an interpreter.
Gentlemen, Alexander Hamilton would like to make a few comments.
Alright, Alex, go ahead.
Ahem!
______
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
@george
More “conservative” rhetoric akin to “we just need to go back to the constitution” or the “democracts are the real racists”.
The reality is the constitution means whatever the courts say it means, which in turn is merely a reflection of the larger society.
Remember politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around.
antonio
antonio, while it may work that way, its not supposed to. that turns into a nation of men, and not laws.
Politics is down stream of culture. But the constitution is the controlling document. A big amendment is the 10th. It states the federal government is constrained by the enumerated powers, and ALL other powers are retained by the States, or the People.
But culture has no place in judicial decisions. Thats why Roe is wrong and why gay marriage is wrong. Judges have no opinion. Its up to the States.
@iwowan2
While I don’t disagree with what you are saying, it practically has no effect. The laws are selectively interpreted and enforced; there is nothing we can do about it. And judges will continue to find new “rights” based on the penumbras (i.e. homosexual “marriage”, abortion, etc.)
I am afraid we aren’t going to “vote” our way out of this. There will have to be at least a section of the elites who are willing to do more than talk…we aren’t there yet. Wait until the broad middle class cannot escape the undertow one more exit down the interstate. I am done with “conservatism” because they “conserve” nothing…and don’t misunderstand, I am a long time member of the Federalist Society. Conservatism, Inc. couldn’t “conserve” marriage, cannot defend the border, how about the 2nd amendment? Wait until the entire US has the demographics of California. The William F. Buckley’s of the world were interested in winning the next election, the left meant business and took control of the culture. It isn’t Reagan’s America anymore and that isn’t coming back. My grandchildren (and yours) will be a hated minority in their own country. And that country isn’t going to be the leftist, multicult paradise they keep promising.
The last 15 years, particularly covid policy has done more to radicalize ordinary people than all of the so-called alt right ever dreamed of doing. I am afraid this will not end well but hope I am wrong.
I suggest you look up American Renaissance and Vdare (there are many others, but these 2 are among the best).
antonio
antonio, I share your vision but have perhaps, a little more hope it won’t go that far due to the People’s faith and practice in their “2nd Rights”, the same Amendment about half of today’s feds despise and attempt to thwart.
Good points, iowan2.
The Colonists said something dissimilar to Great Britain in 1776, comrade.
But then, they had the —–, the ———- fortitude, Mr. Milquetoast.
The previous missive was directed to Aunt Tonio.
For over 20 years my emails, phone calls and other communications have been tampered with weekly by the federal government. My income reduced on average 70% or more over 20 years.
I never consented to this, nor been confronted in front of a judge. Where is Merrick Garland?
Off topic: Meanwhile, the House has just discovered that while Vice President, Joe Biden was using pseudonyms, such as Robert L. Peters, Robin Ware, and JRB Ware, while communicating with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and that Hunter Biden was cc’d on these communications.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1692168155915862080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1692168155915862080%7Ctwgr%5Ecc8b7165a6a8f80010d7be490fc3069a8f9b9759%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2023%2F08%2Fjust-comer-requesting-national-archives-hand-all-un%2F
It is my understanding that statutes of limitation, which would normally be long expired for any crimes committed by Joe Biden while Vice President, would be extended and would not be expired if said crimes were concealed — and that the statutes of limitation only begin to toll once the hidden conduct is discovered.
The House is now requesting production of related documents.
That is very interesting.
Seems more and more evidence to add the the substantial body that is.
Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
No sweat. One reason I posted the information is that I know there are some lawyers that occasionally post comments here, and I’d be interested in reading whether they have a different interpretation than mine about Joetard’s use of pseudonyms to communicate with the Ukrainian President (and probably others) having some impact on the statutes of limitation regarding related potentially-criminal activity.
Good point about the use of pseudonyms in communications.
I mean, why ever would someone do that . . . unless they were up to something that was not on the up and up.
Yes, there’s that — and there’s also the implication that what Joetard was doing was NOT vice-presidential business. Vice Presidents don’t use pseudonyms when conducting government business. This could be one of the bigger smoking guns so far, differentiating Joetard’s official duties from his private activities.
Pedo Peter’s IMPEACHMENT is coming…..it’s a slow moving train but it’s a coming…
Statute of limitations and the use of pseudonyms? Doesn’t matter. What will stop the clock is conspiracy. One could probably argue of a conspiracy to slow walk the information or an investigation to drag things out to exceed the statute of limitations. I don’t know why this isn’t talked about. (Conspiracy after the fact?) Obstruction?
-G
Being most familiar with the operations of law in the state of Ohio, I guess this is what I was getting at:
State v. Cook, 128 Ohio St. 3d 120, 2010-Ohio-6305 – Syllabus: “(1) The corpus delicti of a crime is the body or substance of the crime and usually has two elements: (1) the act itself and (2) the criminal agency of the act. ( State v. Hensley (1991), 59 Ohio St. 3d 136, 138, 571 N.E. 2d 711, approved and followed.) (2) Pursuant to R.C. 2901.13(F), for a felony offense that contains an element of fraud, the six-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2901.13(A)(1)(a) begins to run only after the corpus delicti of that offense is discovered. (3) When a person who is aggrieved by a crime that includes an element of fraud or breach of a fiduciary duty discovers the corpus delicti of that offense, R.C. 2901.13(B)(1) provides the state one additional year within which to file charges from the date that the aggrieved party discovers the corpus delicti of the offense.” State v. Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli, L.P.A. (1999), 85 Ohio St. 3d 582 limited to its facts.
Dissent interprets the syllabus to mean the tolling provision in R.C. 2901.13(F) applies to all felonies from the date the offense is committed until the time the offense is discovered.
https://opd.ohio.gov/law-library/criminal-law-casebook/statute-of-limitations#:~:text=(2)%20Pursuant%20to%20R.C.%202901.13,of%20that%20offense%20is%20discovered.
To me, a cursory reading of that information suggests that an element of fraud operates to toll a statute of limitations “until the time the offense is discovered” — which in this case might be until the time that Joetard’s pseudonym communications with the President of Ukraine were discovered — which apparently is TODAY.
Unfortunately, it’s probably WAY too much to hope for that Professor Turley would weigh in on this subject where his expertise would be more-valuable than when he argues politics.
𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐢𝐝𝐬 ‘𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐫’ 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐛𝐲𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
President Joe Biden praised outgoing White House counsel Stuart Delery amid the top aide’s critical role responding to congressional Republican and special counsel investigations.
Delery has been a “trusted adviser” and “constant source of innovative legal thinking” since day one of the Biden administration, after first being a member of the transition, according to Biden.
by Naomi Lim, White House Reporter ~ August 17, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/biden-white-house-counsel-stuart-delery
𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐃𝐎𝐉 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭?
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of a special counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation appears to violate Justice Department rules.
But legal recourse doesn’t look likely for those who argue that Garland’s appointee, David Weiss, isn’t qualified for the job under the agency’s regulations, which specify the naming of someone from “outside” the Justice Department.
Fred Lucas | @FredLucasWH ~ August 16, 2023
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/16/special-counsel-for-hunter-biden-doesnt-meet-doj-regulations-now-what/
Seems that Garland is just using a different statute. Specifically because Garland can still approve all of filings Weiss is using. Just to prevent Weiss from going into anything touching Joe.
This is nothing but a process to still run out the clock on Hunters crimes. IF Weiss was legit, he would have already filled indictments for everything in the plea deal. As of yet, he has not.
The media has this info covered…with a pillow, so the public is never informed how much Garland is lying. FOX again exposes itself as part of the DC machine, being a good puppy and doing as they are told.
It’s court enforced protections of our free speech rights that motivate anti Constitution private entities to violate those essential and guaranteed rights in line with their leftist ideology.
Just waiting for the first s@@tlib to express in somber tones how this actual is a hindrance to free speech and the government has a DUTY to promote and protect righteous, “progressive” views.
And as often stated in the words of the “Brave, Masked, Wonderful Warriors of Antifa(tm)”:
No free speech for nazis!
Your speech is violence, our response is self defense.
antonio
Huh?
Antonio, you need to rethink what you just posted.
Speech as violence is rhetoric.
Did my speech or someone else’s speech force you to go to the hospital and seek medical attention?
More likely, you’re throwing a temper tantrum when you hear something that goes against your opinion of the world.
But I digress.
The issue that the court found was that there was a grave inconsistency in how the law was applied.
You allow one group to riot/protest and while doing so, they chalk the streets with their message.
No arrests.
Second group in protest chalks their message in the streets.
They are arrested.
The courts found that if you do not apply the law equally, then you have a problem.
The second judge is acting as an adult.
Which is more than I can say for someone who shares your view.
@anonymous
The statement “Your speech is violence, our response is self defense” is commonly said by Antifa as justification while they physically attack their opponents. No free speech for nazis is another common Antifa statement. And their definition of :nazi” is quite broad. I’m afraid Antifa is more than “just an idea”.
antonio
Whatever happened to “No One is Above the Law” ?
Once again Judge Boasberg appears to be a cancer on the DC Court.
And the District Judge–the execrable James Boasberg who swallowed Clinesmith’s tall tale that he was just correcting an erroneous email by doctoring the email that would be filed in an ex parte proceeding. No lawyer in the world would think that’s ok, even if Clinesmith believed the tall tale.
Boasberg is a disgrace. An absolute disgrace.
The problem, of course, is that you can beat the rap, but you cannot beat the ride. At the end of the day, men with guns used force to violate rights. But nothing will happen to the cops who did this. The jury isn’t going to be sympathetic.
It’s a problem.
Black lives only matter if killed by a policeman (about 20 unarmed blacks per year) or a White person (a black is 12 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa). The overwhelming majority of blacks are killed by other blacks and no one seems to care.
You have 12% of the population responsible for around 60% of all homicides in the US. That’s why the most ardent, virtue signaling s@@tlib stays away from the inner city despite their lofty rhetoric about “equity”. Fortunately being a “good white” doesn’t require getting one’s hands dirty, it only requires saying the right things.
https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/
And part of being a “good white” is pretending not to notice such things.
antonio
” most ardent, virtue signaling s@@tlib stays away from the inner city despite their lofty rhetoric about “equity.”
+++
True. Have you noticed that even flame-tongued black race baiters like Rev Wright tend to retire to predominatly white neighborhoods?
They could live in black neighborhoods and help their own people, but they usually don’t. Probably just fussy about being robbed or killed.
The current times are all about “selective enforcement” routinely practiced by virtually all democrats and other statists in positions of authority. Coming from the D.C. Circuit in particular the decision is a much needed refreshing turn in the proper direction.
Trump appointed great judges, in my view, including his picks for the Supreme Court. As a Catholic I never believed Roe v. Wade was a proper legal decision. That decision was awful, 60 million abortions since the decision came down. I’m also strongly opposed to race based college admissions policies, these polices violate civil rights laws. Obamas Supreme Court appointees strongly supported Roe vs. Wade- despite the immorality of murdering the unborn- and these justices also strongly supported race based admissions polices to college, despite the fact that such polices are unconstitutional, and despite they fact the fact they violate civil rights laws Congress has passed. When people try and tell me what a terrible President Trump was I point out, among other things, that Trump appointed really good judges, like this Indian-American judge Professor Turely writes about in this article. I think Judges got to come down on the side of free speech, they also should not allow laws are rules at public agencies or colleges that allow for race based based discrimination.
Drip, drip, drip. Professor writes daily about incremental government abuse of the people and their Constitution yet he still retains a card-carrying membership in one of the most offending (verb) political Party’s ever envisioned for a Free People. Riddle me that, Counselor.
@JAFO,
Ok, look, I’ve got to defend Turley on this.
(FD I’m an independent. Never joined any political party so no primary voting.)
Turley identifies as a Democrat. That doesn’t mean that he has to be lock step in agreement with a lot of the progressive nonsense.
Turley and Dershowitz hold the law in high value. So when they see transgressions under the law, they call it out.
But who is abusing the law?
Not Trump. Not the GOP, but the Dims.
So they call it out. They get ostracized by their friends and peers because they are going against their liberal orthodoxy because they support the law.
But they still identify as a Democrat.
I can appreciate that.
I’m not a fan of Trump.
Trump is Trump. (Good or Bad … take him for what he is.)
But when you consider Trump vs. Clinton? Trump is the lesser evil.
Trump vs. Biden? Trump is the lesser evil.
Biden has set this country’s foreign policy back 75 years! No other POTUS had done this. There is more, but you get the idea.
Turley may not be a fan of Trump, but he’s not going to toe the political line of his professed party over his respect for law and order.
I’m sure that when Trump does break the law… (criminal or civil) Turley will be hard on Trump. However these charges against Trump are a joke.
-G
Ian,
Well said and I agree.
What I find fascinating and to a degree disturbing is the level of hate our leftists friends have for Trump. It does remind me of Orwell’s 1984 and two minutes of hate. They declare Trump is literally Hitler but then they have nothing to back it up with other than emotional rage. Trump is a better ally of Israel and Jews than Biden is by far. His son in law is a Jew. His daughter converted. That is no small task.
Our leftist friends tell us time and time again about how Trump is anti or phobic . . . whatever. And then point to a edited video or comment taken out of context from MSM as evidence that can be easily debunked. But they repeat the lie, over and over again without any self-awareness. For examples, one only has to look at Dennis, or Gigi, Sammy, Bob and of course ATS comments.
Meanwhile the body of evidence of corruption by the Biden Crime Family mounts and they refuse to see it or make excuses that any normal person with a degree of common sense, logic and critical thinking can see right through it.
Comm’on man! It is right in front of you and you are too blinded by your loyalty to the party or just that dumb.
Gentlemen (Upstate and Gumby), not disagreeing with either of your line(s) of thought. I simply don’t know why Turley “stays” after reporting so many instances of unconstitutional, misuses of power by his own ‘side’, nothing more.
Gumby, I hear ya. What Turley, Dershowitz, and other classic liberals might have forgotten is, “Unspoken Rule Number One”: “The Party Comes First. All other considerations maaaybe a distant second at best, including good of The Country or for those fools that voted us into Office, including Mr. Turley and Mr. Dershowitz, but it’s Party first so we can enjoy the spoils of being Politicians, spending other people’s money instead of our own on the stuff we want and want to do.” (It’s in the handbook they give out on your first day in office. 😊”
Recent testimonials by Turley, in Congressional Hearings, confirmed those who used to be like-minded associates on keeping government running within it’s Constitutional limits, have abandoned the likes of Turley, Dershowitz, Manchin and other centrists for daring to speak in their newly-shifted, far Left, private, political, collective, for at least 10-12 years now. He “could” be like you and I, registered Independent, and have the same voice and opportunity to tell DC they’re wrong on the law, and that putting people in jail for disagreeing about election results are wrong, and at the same time, continue to be a never-Trumper like most RiNOs in the District. Turley’s eyes are open, he sees his Party has left him (and his integrity) by the side of the road, yet he remains ‘faithful to the cause’. The question is why? Is it Battered Wife or Stockholm Syndrome? I don’t believe either to be the case, of course, but his general willingness to put-up-with-it-anyway and stay the course, is as confounding as his mixed-messages postings, at least to this Constitutional Libertarian.
Dims are such smug hypocrites preaching inclusivity and diversity for the buddies and iron-fisted oppression for their ideological opponents. Do the Dims have any redeeming qualities except lockstep thinking?
Mespo,
Lockstep thinking is at play in the Maui fire. Maui Mayor Richard Bissen & Gov Josh Green.
The comparison.
Lockstep thinking was at play in the New Orleans hurricane Katrina. Mayor Ray Nagin & Gov Kathleen Blanco.
Results: incompetence, negligence, & dereliction of duties & responsibilities.
John Spartan,
Only after days of criticism Biden will now go to Maui after his “no comment” comment and days of silence on the topic.
Note, Biden still has yet to go to the town of East Palestine OH.
But Trump went.
John,
Hawaii has always been been under terrible governance. The pool of smart accomplished candidates is extremely shallow. The history and resulting culture is just what the people want.
Read Michners nove, Hawwaii. It lays out all the competing players. Mainly an unholy mashup of business interests, squashing the people.
And while I am lectured to constantly ACCEPT all others, and to shed my culture while welcoming immigrants, the Hawaii people are not welcoming of non-natives, nor does anyone think they should. Your parents can be born in Hawaii, but you will never be a local Hawaiin. Always less then, in the power dynamic
Diversity is a VALUE not a principle.
It is important that we know the difference between values and principles.
Principles are absolute. Things go to h311 when we compromise on actual principles.
Free will is a principle. That does not mean absolute freedom is a principle, but freedom of Thought IS.
Diversity is a VALUE – it comes with Plusess and minuses – even if those on the left will not admit that it is not all peaches and cream.
Every single nation that those on the left admires – has managed to have the quasi socialist policies that the left loves ONLY with relatively small groups and only with almost no diversity.
Shared values and diversity are nearly opposites. The more diverse a country is the less shared values it has.
That is NOT inherently a bad thing – it can even be a good thing. But it REQUIRES more limited government.
The more diverse a country is and the more it tries to FORCE through government shared values onto people the more unstable and even violent the country will be – the more crime there will be.
I can go on an on, but the core POINT is that diversity is a VALUE not a principle. We make tradeoffs and compromises with values.
I like natural wood, but I also like things that endure – these are two values. Values can conflict, and we MUST make choices regarding values.
Diversity brings many good things, but it does not come for free.
Open Boards are not an absolute good or an absolute bad.
Closed borders are not an absolute good or an absolute bad.
We make choices – and not necescarily choices that we all agree with, compromises between our values.
Something the left has no understanding of – because we value MANY things, and we can not optimize fort the best result of ALL of them.
In the US we have individual liberty as a slightly less than absolute PRINCIPLE.
That is a good thing – both as a matter of 10,000 years of development of philosophy and understanding of human behavior,
It is the core to self governance, And as a practical matter – because it WORKS and there is an enormous amount of historical data demonstrating that with a very wide window, more freedom means more prosperity for ALL.
That liberty principle leads us to VALUE diversity. BUT it also REQUIRES us to accomplish that VOLUNTARILY – through persuasion not FORCE. It means that we mostly allow people to discriminate, because it is near impossible to truly determine from the outside when discrimination is good and when it is bad. It probably is a bad thing to hire a blind quadriplegic roofer. Further descrimination is just another word for CHOICE. Can government tell us – I do not mean is it allowed to, but is it actually able to do so accurately, which people we should hire and which we should not ?
If it can not – which it cant, then we are best to leave people to make those decisions on their own – even if we do not like their decisions. Boycott the places that will not hire blacks or gays or that make woke movies that suck, or that feature drag queens in Girl Face on their beer cans. The right choices will get sorted out by the market over the long run.
If discriminating against blacks or gays or trans or jews is a poor choice – those who discriminate will be outperformed by those who do not. They will have better wealthier, happier lives and we will all slowly on our own revise our choices accordingly. But if a choice that some of us do not like proves wise – those who make it will do well.
That regression towards improvement DOES NOT HAPPEN with government in control.
Because AGAIN – like many other things the left likes to pretend are principles – diversity is ONLY a value.
And values ALWAYS get traded off against other values.
Incompetence and corruption are intrinsic in government.
Calvin Coolidge ignored a massive flooding disaster in his home state of Vermont. It was not governments business, and it was not the FEDERAL governments business specifically.
Prior to Hoover the Federal Government specifically and Government more generally stayed OUT of natural disasters.
Government is ill equiped to deal with them and government involvement primarily ends up being a massive corrupt and incompetent boondoggle.
While there WAS government involvment in Huricane Rita in TX The Big difference between TX which recovered quickly and you would hardly know today and New Orleans that STILL shows signs of the damage from Katrina is that the people of TX did not depend on Government. They brought about their own recovery and they knew they could.
This is a principle that goes far beyond natural disasters.
Each of us will have bad things happen in our lives – some of us will have incredibly horrible things happen, and others will be relatively fortunate. Some will be the victim of nature, others will be the victims of abusers.
As a libertarian I absolutely beleive that those who harm us should be required to make us whole.
But as a practical matter outside of financial matters that is not possible.
You can not demand of god and nature to make you whole after a natural disaster.
And you can demand all you want that you be made whole by evil people who harm you – it is not going to happen.
In March of 1983 my wife of only 6 months was abuducted off the street on her way to her job as a church organist, and violently sexually assaulted for 3 hours.
Recovery for both of us took years. I do not wish to claim the harm to me was equal to her, but it still was devastating.
A decade later my wife chose to go to law school. She was accepted by UofP and graduated near the top of her class.
And she has been a public defender for the past 20 years. Defending people much like those that assaulted her.
We eventually learned that as horrendous as what happened to us was – the only person who could give us back our lives was us. Catching the person who harmed us – subjecting them to the most punishment the law allows would not make us whole.
Frankly in most instances the criminals in our society are themselves more broken than their victims.
Expecting them to make whole what they broke is insantiy.
You can wish for a world where this is not so – but you can not get it.
God, Nature. Gaia – whatever it is you beleive in – does not give a schiff.
Optimally you can have the help of your neighbors, your community, your church, ….
but only YOU can make you whole again. Or not.
One of the things my wife and I learned – not just about crime but about many different bad things in life, is that
perpitrator or victim – most people trap themselves in the bad things that happened to them – and I fully understand how tempting that is – in may even be fully justified – you did not ask for the h311 dumped on you.
But that does not matter. Your government, your church, your friends, your family, the red cross, …. can only do so much,
and as valuable as that might be it will ALWAYS fall far short of what is needed.
So I really do not care that Biden has not gone to Hawaii,
Except that it continues to prove what hypocrits he and those on the left are.
They BELEIVE that govenrment – the president going to a natural disaster makes some magical difference.
So when they do not do so it says something about them.
In the end though – Calvin Collidge was right – send your charity if you want. Volunteer and go to Hawaii to help.
But in the end the people in Hawaii are the ones who will decide for themselves if they recover.
Whether they are New Orleans or Texas.
Like New Orleans and TX they will likely get lots of federal money. nearly all of which will be squandered.
Because that is what govenrment is good at.
Judge Neomi Rao should consider a balanced approach when dealing with pro-life protesters & Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters. This would include clemency for anyone convicted by offering free time to serve at the White House as a washroom attendant.
I see lots of appeals for the Jan 6 defendants. Now there is solid precedent.
I doubt you’ve paid attention to the actual charges against the J6 criminals, or that you have any examples of people on the left engaging in similar conduct but not being charged.
ATT
Cover your eyes back up Smeagol, u dont want to see this…
The 2020 riots? They hit DC. Few arrests, no idea about trials and sentencing. The original refusal to use the National Guard to protect citizens and property.
Worse.
Attempted destruction of a Federal building.
Attacks on Police
Firebombing Police cars?
And if you watch the videos, some of ANTIFA were embedded in the J6 protests instigating the violence at the Capitol.