@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:
@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.
@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 You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to keep others from exercising their right to assemble.