Civil Rights Violations Lawsuits - Freemasons

[Neo Deist]

I can't give you a link to an article because one does not exist (yet). All I can say is that there was some discussion this morning looking into a federal lawsuit aimed at Leftist groups that intentionally tried to disrupt President Trump's inauguration. It would not be directed at the Democratic Party or peaceful protesters.

The reasoning behind the motion was that tens of thousands of US citizens had their 1st Amendment right to peaceful assembly violated, by those that were intentionally trying to prevent them from attending the inauguration or parade. It is being looked into from a legal standpoint. If it carries forward, it would be a class action lawsuit.

The irony is that the Left is normally the side that promotes equality and civil liberties without discrimination, but by barring others from attending, they infringed on the rights of others and became hypocrites.

I will keep you all updated.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How are they demonstrating an intent to block access? As opposed to 'the March became so populous that it's been converted into a rally because there is no more room to move.'
Also, how are they determining it's the groups organizers who provoked or are responsible for the blocked access, as opposed to individuals not moving out of the way?
I'd like more information before making any sort of judgement.

 

[Laika]

I can't give you a link to an article because one does not exist (yet). All I can say is that there was some discussion this morning looking into a federal lawsuit aimed at Leftist groups that intentionally tried to disrupt President Trump's inauguration. It would not be directed at the Democratic Party or peaceful protesters.

The reasoning behind the motion was that tens of thousands of US citizens had their 1st Amendment right to peaceful assembly violated, by those that were intentionally trying to prevent them from attending the inauguration or parade. It is being looked into from a legal standpoint. If it carries forward, it would be a class action lawsuit.

The irony is that the Left is normally the side that promotes equality and civil liberties without discrimination, but by barring others from attending, they infringed on the rights of others and became hypocrites.

I will keep you all updated.

I can understand a person getting sued for property damage or assault... I get that. And I'm ok with that.

But what you appear to be saying is that the state gets to determine what constitutes a legitimate protest and sue those who do not protest "correctly" because first amendment is not an individual right but a privallage given to people by the state. Worse, this would appear to be a "speculative" guilt in which guilt is assumed by "incorrect" protesting rather than has to be proven under the presumption of innocence.

If I've understood that right, that sounds really "off". If its got anything to do with the link below, I'd say thats a truly perverted interpretation of the first amendment. Saying "we doing it for freedom" doesn't make it true.
Want to protest Trump's inauguration? The government may not let you

 

[Onyx]

Freemasons?

 

[omega2xx]

I can't give you a link to an article because one does not exist (yet). All I can say is that there was some discussion this morning looking into a federal lawsuit aimed at Leftist groups that intentionally tried to disrupt President Trump's inauguration. It would not be directed at the Democratic Party or peaceful protesters.

The reasoning behind the motion was that tens of thousands of US citizens had their 1st Amendment right to peaceful assembly violated, by those that were intentionally trying to prevent them from attending the inauguration or parade. It is being looked into from a legal standpoint. If it carries forward, it would be a class action lawsuit.

The irony is that the Left is normally the side that promotes equality and civil liberties without discrimination, but by barring others from attending, they infringed on the rights of others and became hypocrites.

Only if it fits their agenda. The left is the most hypocritical folks we have.

I will keep you all updated.

Thanks

 

[Neo Deist]

How are they demonstrating an intent to block access? As opposed to 'the March became so populous that it's been converted into a rally because there is no more room to move.'
Also, how are they determining it's the groups organizers who provoked or are responsible for the blocked access, as opposed to individuals not moving out of the way?
I'd like more information before making any sort of judgement.

Certain groups called for blocking access and intentionally tried to bar people from getting there. Those groups have been very focal about disruption.

 

[Sunstone]

Only if it fits their agenda. The left is the most hypocritical folks we have. Thanks

There are hypocrites on both sides. Adults know this.

 

[Neo Deist]

Freemasons?

Yes, a local chapter of the Freemasons.

 

[Neo Deist]

I have no further information at this time.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Certain groups called for blocking access and intentionally tried to bar people from getting there. Those groups have been very focal about disruption.

I'd like some examples if they become available.

 

[omega2xx]

There are hypocrites on both sides. Adults know this.

Of course but the left likes to preach tolerance of all views and they are not.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Of course but the left likes to preach tolerance of all views and they are not.

Except nobody actually claims to be tolerant of all viiews and this is a tired old strawman. I don't tolerate discrimination against people for their race, nationality, religion, sex, gender or disability and I don't tolerate policy which enforces said discrimination.

 

[Quetzal]

I can't give you a link to an article because one does not exist (yet). All I can say is that there was some discussion this morning looking into a federal lawsuit aimed at Leftist groups that intentionally tried to disrupt President Trump's inauguration. It would not be directed at the Democratic Party or peaceful protesters.

The reasoning behind the motion was that tens of thousands of US citizens had their 1st Amendment right to peaceful assembly violated, by those that were intentionally trying to prevent them from attending the inauguration or parade. It is being looked into from a legal standpoint. If it carries forward, it would be a class action lawsuit.

The irony is that the Left is normally the side that promotes equality and civil liberties without discrimination, but by barring others from attending, they infringed on the rights of others and became hypocrites.

I will keep you all updated.

It will be interesting to see if this sticks. I have my doubts but we will see. (Posting for future updates)

 

[tytlyf]

Of course but the left likes to preach tolerance of all views and they are not.

Why should anyone in the world be tolerant of bigots and racists? They're beneath everything.

 

[Neo Deist]

I can understand a person getting sued for property damage or assault... I get that. And I'm ok with that.

But what you appear to be saying is that the state gets to determine what constitutes a legitimate protest and sue those who do not protest "correctly" because first amendment is not an individual right but a privallage given to people by the state. Worse, this would appear to be a "speculative" guilt in which guilt is assumed by "incorrect" protesting rather than has to be proven under the presumption of innocence.

If I've understood that right, that sounds really "off". If its got anything to do with the link below, I'd say thats a truly perverted interpretation of the first amendment. Saying "we doing it for freedom" doesn't make it true.
Want to protest Trump's inauguration? The government may not let you

A legitimate protest would be one where they are not destroying property and assaulting people. What some of them are doing is a flat out riot. The law does not recognize the right to riot.

You are free to express your 1st Amendment right in a peaceful and lawful manner. However, you are not free to infringe on the rights of others while doing it. Intentionally blocking an entrance in order to prevent people from attending the inauguration, is a violation of the attendees' 1st Amendment right to peaceful assembly at the inauguration. That is what is being looked at.

 

[Neo Deist]

Why should anyone in the world be tolerant of bigots and racists? They're beneath everything.

Bigotry swings both ways.

 

[Neo Deist]

I'd like some examples if they become available.

I talked to some of my LEO friends that are in DC for the weekend. They were up there as reps from our P.D. and were stationed along the parade route.

Anyway, I asked if they had heard any specifics about any protest groups that were under investigation. One stood out in particular...something called DC Anti Fascist Coalition (DC AFC). Someone leaked to the Feds that DC AFC was looking to fumigate the press center with some type of acid that gives off a noxious odor. There were also supposed plans to try and set off the sprinklers at the "Deploraball" and force the attendees into confronting protesters outside. I don't know if it was this same group, but people were instructed to chain themselves to the gates to bar access to the inauguration. At one gate, five black men did exactly that.

All I have for now.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I talked to some of my LEO friends that are in DC for the weekend. They were up there as reps from our P.D. and were stationed along the parade route.

Anyway, I asked if they had heard any specifics about any protest groups that were under investigation. One stood out in particular...something called DC Anti Fascist Coalition (DC AFC). Someone leaked to the Feds that DC AFC was looking to fumigate the press center with some type of acid that gives off a noxious odor. There were also supposed plans to try and set off the sprinklers at the "Deploraball" and force the attendees into confronting protesters outside. I don't know if it was this same group, but people were instructed to chain themselves to the gates to bar access to the inauguration. At one gate, five black men did exactly that.

All I have for now.

I've seen it on conservative news reports. But the three people (which weren't event organizers or connected to the protest group at large) claims it was just messing with the conservative camera actor.

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas: Anti-Trump Activists Planning 'Stink Bombs' at DeploraBall

 

[omega2xx]

Except nobody actually claims to be tolerant of all viiews and this is a tired old strawman. I don't tolerate discrimination against people for their race, nationality, religion, sex, gender or disability and I don't tolerate policy which enforces said discrimination.

That is the tired old strawman I always get when I remind the left how hypocritical they are. Anyone with an ounce of smarts knows I did not include the things you mentioned.

 

[omega2xx]

Why should anyone in the world be tolerant of bigots and racists? They're beneath everything.

How sad. That is the usual strawman when I remind the left of its hypocrisy. Only a caved man with a low 2 digit IQ, would think I meant things like that.