Comments by "RagaSHOT" (@RagaSHOT) on "Gutfeld: The crime of the year" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@myjeevie A federal judge is not buying the First Amendment argument that the Proud Boys are spinning in an attempt to evade criminal punishment for their alleged participation in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly on Tuesday refused to throw out charges against four members of the far-right group—Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Charles Donohoe—who were indicted in March on riot-related offenses, including conspiracy and obstructing an official proceeding. (All have pleaded not guilty.) Lawyers for the four men had sought to dismiss the charges by arguing, among other things, that the conduct they have been accused of engaging in is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. But Kelly, an appointee of former president Donald Trump, argued that’s not how that protection works.
“Quite obviously, there were many avenues for Defendants to express their opinions about the 2020 presidential election, or their views about how Congress should perform its constitutional duties on January 6, without resorting to the conduct with which they have been charged,” Kelly, wrote in Tuesday’s 43-page opinion. That conduct includes trespassing, destruction of property, and interference with law enforcement, per Bloomberg. “Defendants are not, as they argue, charged with anything like burning flags, wearing black armbands, or participating in mere sit-ins or protests,” Kelly wrote. “Moreover, even if the charged conduct had some expressive aspect, it lost whatever First Amendment protection it may have had.”
1
-
@allenatkins2263 Afederal judge is not buying the First Amendment argument that the Proud Boys are spinning in an attempt to evade criminal punishment for their alleged participation in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly on Tuesday refused to throw out charges against four members of the far-right group—Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Charles Donohoe—who were indicted in March on riot-related offenses, including conspiracy and obstructing an official proceeding. (All have pleaded not guilty.) Lawyers for the four men had sought to dismiss the charges by arguing, among other things, that the conduct they have been accused of engaging in is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. But Kelly, an appointee of former president Donald Trump, argued that’s not how that protection works.
“Quite obviously, there were many avenues for Defendants to express their opinions about the 2020 presidential election, or their views about how Congress should perform its constitutional duties on January 6, without resorting to the conduct with which they have been charged,” Kelly, wrote in Tuesday’s 43-page opinion. That conduct includes trespassing, destruction of property, and interference with law enforcement, per Bloomberg. “Defendants are not, as they argue, charged with anything like burning flags, wearing black armbands, or participating in mere sit-ins or protests,” Kelly wrote. “Moreover, even if the charged conduct had some expressive aspect, it lost whatever First Amendment protection it may have had.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1