@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 @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.