@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:

@LouisIngenthron They can arrest individuals for throwing punches but you sue an organization for conspiring to deprive people of rights.

@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.

@Catawu I could be wrong, but I don't think the Nazis are antisemetic because it's profitable.

@LouisIngenthron You are wrong. You think they don’t have assets and fund their activities? You think they are maybe a charity? LOL

@LouisIngenthron Taking their assets prevents them from continuing to carry on without consequences. Someone is funding them. Taking that away, makes it harder for them to organize and to pay legal costs. Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?

@Catawu That's only if you win the suit, and even then, the penalties are usually relatively minor.

But either way, you also validate their persecution complex, giving them a clear message to fundraise on.

Just look at Trump. Every time a new development in one of his 30+ cases breaks, the donor texts go out.
On the other side, Planned Parenthood also sees big revenue boosts whenever Roe is further dismantled by the courts.

If your goal is to bankrupt them, this is a failing strategy.

@LouisIngenthron Yeah, just let them run around unchallenged. Why fight back? Why win? You’re right. Nobody should do anything because the liars will just lie more. Perfect logic. Flawless. Have a wonderful day.

@Catawu Or you could arrest them when they commit violence, as I said above.

Believe it or not, there's a wide gulf between "do nothing" and "unconstitutional prior restraint".

@LouisIngenthron Arrest them and not take their property? What about those organizations that fund, train, nurture the violence? Leave ‘em be? Ignore them? You have no clue how the real world works, and that must be so very, very nice for you.

@Catawu I'm pretty sure you can have asset forfeiture in criminal cases.

@LouisIngenthron So only violence is criminal and only criminal involves forfeiture? You don’t do much law, do you.

@Catawu Your endless straw men and arrogance are getting tiresome.

If you'd prefer to engage with the arguments I've made instead of the ones you've imagined, I'll engage. If not, then goodbye.

@LouisIngenthron How is imposing financial consequences for bad/harmful acts, “Unconstitutional or Prior Restraint”?

@Catawu https://qoto.org/@LouisIngenthron/111585654949024562

@LouisIngenthron BTW, a mother and son bankrupted a White Supremacist group, even got their lands. But I’m sure you look at it as because it didn’t completely eradicate all WS, it was for naught.

Ruby and Shay just won a big one over one of the biggest racists out there. But yeah, he’ll just use it for fundraising so, why bother?

@Catawu That sounds good. If they were harmed, they should sue. That's different from the government suing.

@LouisIngenthron So, judges can’t impose fines for crimes against the State? No financial consequences because there was no ‘violence’? Pull your head out man.

@Catawu I never claimed anything of the sort.

@LouisIngenthron Your logic is weak. You didn’t claim it per se, but your line of logic led only to that destination. Perhaps think about the next logical steps so you don’t get ‘misunderstood’.