@JoshuaHolland I don't get it. Why are they suing the organization? If they're actually breaking the law and committing violence, arrest them. This smells like it'll get thrown out on 1A grounds.
@LouisIngenthron Pretty well spelled out in the piece.
@JoshuaHolland Not from what I've read. It doesn't explain why they're suing instead of arresting. And much of sounds like textbook prior restraint:
@JoshuaHolland Okay, that definitely makes more sense, but it still sounds like a longshot with constitutional concerns.
@LouisIngenthron You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to keep others from exercising their right to assemble.
@JoshuaHolland I agree with that. And anyone who uses violence to keep others from exercising their rights *should* be arrested and charged.
But it doesn't justify the government violating someone else's rights to try to preempt it.
@LouisIngenthron Again, this isn't about their rights. They only have a right to assemble and express themselves.
Anyway, we have a judicial system and I'm sure they'll mount a 1A defense. I just don't think it'll work given that plaintiffs will evidence of them openly and explicitly stating that their goal is to deprive others of those same rights.
@LouisIngenthron @JoshuaHolland It doesn’t have to be violent to be illegal or to deny people their rights. Using shouting, screaming at a person, threatening them with doxxing, slandering them to their employers… not violent. You seem to have lost the thread on what it takes to do harm. Not all harm is ‘violent’.
@LouisIngenthron @JoshuaHolland Habitual harassing activity may not rise to the level of criminal, but it can be considered civil damage. Suing is what you do for civil damages. Arrest is what you do for criminal behavior. I suspect they want to discourage the criminal behavior behind “HATE” behavior that menaces, threatens, intimidates minorities. The govt has both avenues open to them: Civil and criminal. There is no prior restraint issue in saying you can’t harass people.
@Catawu If it's criminal harassment, they should be arrested and charged. If it's civil harassment, then the injured party should sue for damages.
Neither of these requires a court order before the offense occurred to be enforceable.
There is no point to trying to get a court order against someone to "not do crimes". That's what the law is already there for. So then it stands to reason that the goal of seeking a court order is instead to restrain otherwise legal conduct.
@LouisIngenthron If our tax dollars go to policing their harassment of citizens in public, over and over again, the city/government is the injured party. And with that, you have become a broken record and are boring the living shit out of me. Good day.
@LouisIngenthron They can arrest individuals for throwing punches but you sue an organization for conspiring to deprive people of rights.