Quote by ElCoco
Appeals Court Made Up Of Obama and Biden Appointees Find That D.C. Has Discriminated Against Pro-Life Protesters
go check out the other stories on their site. they're hilarious.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
These threads are starting to get redundant and are clogging up the Think Tank. If you find anymore conspiracy theories or anything related, please condense your posts about them to this thread. All the others will be locked.
░P░U░S░S░Y░ ░I░N░ ░B░I░O░
Validated? Mentioned, perhaps.
DC police arrested over 300 people during the George Floyd Black Lives Matter riots. They arrested TWO in the "Black Pre-born Lives Matter" protests.
All the numbers are from your own article. “During the same summer,” observed Rao, “District police officers arrested two pro-life advocates in a smaller protest for chalking ‘Black Pre-Born Lives Matter’ on a public sidewalk."
The three judge panel was merely allowing the case to move forward. It wasn't deciding the case.
Tintinnabulation - first place (Free Spirit)
Comet Q - second place (Quick and Risqué Sex)
Amnesia - third place (Le Noir Erotique)
Quote by Ensorceled
Validated? Mentioned, perhaps.
DC police arrested over 300 people during the George Floyd Black Lives Matter riots. They arrested TWO in the "Black Pre-born Lives Matter" protests.
All the numbers are from your own article. “During the same summer,” observed Rao, “District police officers arrested two pro-life advocates in a smaller protest for chalking ‘Black Pre-Born Lives Matter’ on a public sidewalk."
The three judge panel was merely allowing the case to move forward. It wasn't deciding the case.
meanwhile, according to the other articles provided by the site, gay people are running around committing violence on straight people all over the country.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
That so called news site, Mediate, is a great example of a cheap online propaganda site. Every story slanted toward the extreme rightwing. Written specifically to support a specific point of view that only extremist rightwingers want to read.
It is such unabashed rightwing trash that it makes National Enquirer and Star look like real journalism.
Quote by Chryses
“Selective enforcement of a neutral and facially constitutional law may run afoul of the First Amendment if the government’s prosecutorial choices turn on the content or viewpoint of speech,” noted Rao. “It is antithetical to a free society for the government to give ‘one side of a debatable public question an advantage in expressing its views to the people.”
“By making no arrests, the police effectively exempted advocates of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ message from the requirements of the ordinance,” continued the majority opinion, which contrasted the leniency with how the police department showed up “in force” to the pro-life protest where two activists were arrested. “Allowing the expression of one message while silencing another is quintessential viewpoint discrimination.”
Let's note again that the three judge panel was merely allowing the case to move forward. It wasn't deciding the case.
The case?
Police officers said the Black Pre-Born Lives Matter advocates could assemble in accordance with the Foundation’s permit, but if they painted or chalked their message on the sidewalk, they would be arrested for violating the defacement ordinance. Two students began to chalk “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on the sidewalk anyway.... The two students were arrested. (This is from court documents, you guys should actually read the links you post).
Agree with me so far? The cops said if they used the chalk, they'd get arrested. They used the chalk. They got arrested. (That part is undisputed.)
Their defense? BLM protesters, in another protest, on another day, did it. “Over several weeks, the protesters covered streets, sidewalks, and storefronts with paint and chalk. The markings were ubiquitous and in open violation of the District’s defacement ordinance, yet none of the protesters were arrested,” Judge Neomi Rao wrote.
Obviously, a TON of BLM protesters were arrested (Google it - DC arrested hundreds). The defense is that THEY WEREN'T ARRESTED FOR GRAFITTI. Seriously.
DC says that arresting protesters for graffiti during the Black Lives Matter protests would have drained “police resources and distract officers from other priorities, such as ensuring public safety and addressing widespread looting and property damage.” Sounds reasonable.
Should the police have arrested BLM protesters for graffiti while buildings were burning and stores being looted? And if your answer is yes, does their response mean that all graffiti is now legal, since BLM protesters did it and didn't get arrested? That's the gist of their argument. I'm guessing this will get tossed.
Tintinnabulation - first place (Free Spirit)
Comet Q - second place (Quick and Risqué Sex)
Amnesia - third place (Le Noir Erotique)
Quote by Ensorceled
Let's note again that the three judge panel was merely allowing the case to move forward. It wasn't deciding the case.
The case?
Police officers said the Black Pre-Born Lives Matter advocates could assemble in accordance with the Foundation’s permit, but if they painted or chalked their message on the sidewalk, they would be arrested for violating the defacement ordinance. Two students began to chalk “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on the sidewalk anyway.... The two students were arrested. (This is from court documents, you guys should actually read these some days).
Agree with me so far? The cops said if they used the chalk, they'd get arrested. They used the chalk. They got arrested.
Their defense? BLM protesters, in another protest, did it. “Over several weeks, the protesters covered streets, sidewalks, and storefronts with paint and chalk. The markings were ubiquitous and in open violation of the District’s defacement ordinance, yet none of the protesters were arrested,” Judge Neomi Rao wrote.
Obviously, a TON of BLM protesters were arrested (Google it). The defense is that THEY WEREN'T ARRESTED FOR GRAFITTI. Seriously.
DC says that arresting protesters for graffiti during the Black Lives Matter protests would have drained “police resources and distract officers from other priorities, such as ensuring public safety and addressing widespread looting and property damage.”
Should the police have arrested BLM protesters for graffiti while buildings were burning and stores being looted? And if your answer is yes, does their response mean that all graffiti is now legal, since BLM protesters did it and didn't get arrested? That's the gist of their argument. I'm guessing this will get tossed.
Please stop trying to make sense to people who only care about being provocateurs.
░P░U░S░S░Y░ ░I░N░ ░B░I░O░
Quote by Chryses
I think you and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia are not referring to the same thing. The court was asked to determine if the District of Columbia’s defacement ordinance was sufficiently selective to have violated the First Amendment.
“This case is about the District’s alleged discriminatory enforcement of its defacement ordinance. The ordinance prohibits “willfully and wantonly … writ[ing], mark[ing], draw[ing], or paint[ing]” on public or private property, without the consent of the owner or the public official controlling the property.1 D.C. CODE § 22–3312.1.”
The court ruled unanimously that the District had acted unconstitutionally.
Nope, though it is a deft evasion of the facts of the case, which I was discussing (see my last paragraph).
Still, I'll allow it. 
Below is a less sensationalistic summation of the case. Note the first sentence says the panel ruled to revive the lawsuit, not decide the outcome of the lawsuit. "A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday revived part of a lawsuit claiming that the District of Columbia enforced an anti-graffiti law against anti-abortion protesters in Washington but not racial justice demonstrators in 2020."
The case USCA Case #21-7108, which you refer to, is an appeal. It is not a final ruling. The court ruled unanimously that the suit can proceed, not that the district had acted unconstitutionally, as you state,
Tintinnabulation - first place (Free Spirit)
Comet Q - second place (Quick and Risqué Sex)
Amnesia - third place (Le Noir Erotique)
Quote by Ironic
Here’s a conspiracy theory (the Feds censor social media) that the Supreme Court will decide. There’s no doubt the White House will appeal. 5th Circuit finds Biden White House, CDC likely violated First Amendment
Biden is powerful enough to control the world economy, right now he’s creating inflation.. he has space lasers, he has puppet dictators like Zelenskyy, eats all the fucking ice cream he wants.. and you think they’re going to get him on some chicken shit first amendment violation?
Laughing my ass off.
Quote by Chryses
No one has suggested the judgment was a final ruling.
I did state the court ruled unanimously that the District had acted unconstitutionally. The court did rule unanimously that the District had violated the First Amendment. Emphasis added.
…
“The government may not play favorites in a public forum—permitting some messages and prohibiting others. We conclude the Foundation has plausibly alleged the District’s selective enforcement of the defacement ordinance constituted viewpoint discrimination in a public forum in violation of the First Amendment.”
…
“The Foundation has advanced a predicate First Amendment selective enforcement violation. To establish the District’s liability under Monell, the Foundation must also plausibly allege the violation was pursuant to an official custom or policy. We hold that it has.”
…
“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the dismissal of the First Amendment free speech claim, affirm dismissal of the equal protection claim, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.”
So, we have The Great Graffiti Scandal! I am sure this will inspire movies, books, TV shows, massive protests...well, maybe it will inspire some new graffiti on the sides of train cars. 🤣
Quote by Magical_felix
Biden is powerful enough to control the world economy, right now he’s creating inflation.. he has space lasers, he has puppet dictators like Zelenskyy, eats all the fucking ice cream he wants.. and you think they’re going to get him on some chicken shit first amendment violation?
Laughing my ass off.
Yes, Biden may be so powerful that he is controlling Lunar tides. 😊 He may soon go down in history with enough conspiracies attributed to him that he surpasses George W. Bush in the record books.
And all this time, Biden has been pretending to be senile and stumbling dizzy. What a genuis!
Quote by Buz
Yes, Biden may be so powerful that he is controlling Lunar tides. 😊 He may soon go down in history with enough conspiracies attributed to him that he surpasses George W. Bush in the record books.
And all this time, Biden has been pretending to be senile and stumbling dizzy. What a genuis!
Dude, Biden was pulling Dubya’s strings that whole time in the early 2000s.
Quote by Magical_felix
Dude, Biden was pulling Dubya’s strings that whole time in the early 2000s.
Biden started WWI ya know - he had archduke Ferdinand assinated by the illuminati.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
Quote by Ironic
If you're thinking about it as graffiti, then the document being defaced is the Constitution of your country.
They defaced a sidewalk outside an abortion clinic.
Tintinnabulation - first place (Free Spirit)
Comet Q - second place (Quick and Risqué Sex)
Amnesia - third place (Le Noir Erotique)
Quote by Ironic
If you're thinking about it as graffiti, then the document being defaced is the Constitution of your country.
what are you going on about this time?
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
Quote by sprite
what are you going on about this time?
Freedom of speech. He thinks defacing places he doesn’t like or hate speech is a right protected by the constitution.
Quote by Justlooking51
How many of them got 22 year sentences?
How many of them stormed the state capitol in an attempt to overthrow an election?
░P░U░S░S░Y░ ░I░N░ ░B░I░O░
The most righteous defense of our Democracy is the right to vote, in fact it is your obligation to do so. All this “conspiracy” nonsense is likely ginned up by some fat guy sitting in his parents basement masturbating while he publishes photos of Michele Obama testicles and Biden going down on McCarty.come folks just get off your ass and vote these people out of office…you know you want to!
Quote by ElCoco
The plaintiffs will probably win.
Why do you think so, dumb dumb? And what will you say when nothing comes of it?
Quote by ElCoco
Now that the District and Appeals Courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the next court will likely agree with those opinions.
That’s not really the case though is it? As they also said there was a lack of evidence lol
Nothing will happen. A bunch of hicks in Louisiana and Missouri have accomplished nothing. And nothing will happen to Biden, the FBI or the government.
The argument is that they weren’t allowed to say the election was stolen and that the pandemic was fake… but that’s all we’ve heard from republicans and the right wing for 3 years.
Quote by Ironic
Buz described this unconstitutional behavior by the government as "The Great Graffiti Scandal", so I put the graffiti in context.
Hmm... unconstitutional behavior? Wouldn't that be rightwing SCOTUS justices that are bought and paid for? Or are you rightwingers in total denial?
Quote by ElCoco
Assuming you're right about your accusations, the actions would be impeachable, not unconstitutional.
No. The Constitution is the law. Taking bribes as a justice is unlawful...
Quote by ElCoco
Murder is unlawful. Murder is not unconstitutional.
Then start a thread about murder. Maybe include traffic speeding and spitting on the sidewalk.
Quote by ElCoco
You're the one who brought up the idea that unlawful action is unconstitutional. I just gave you an example that it's not true. You've just provided a couple more.
Read the Constitution. And try to comprehend it.
Quote by ElCoco
Yes, that's really the case.
You should read about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/04/biden-social-lawsuit-missouri-louisiana/
Or read it.
There is a lack of evidence.. it’s all performative panocho, nothing will come of this and I’ll come back to laugh at you when nothing happens.
Quote by ElCoco
Based on what I've read, I think the plaintiffs have better legal arguments and will win the case. All we've got to do is wait for the verdict.
Another MAGA waste of time..[edited by moderator]
