In a major defeat for Democrats, a federal court by a 3 to0 vote ruled that in the summer of 2020 BLM and antifa rioters burned, vandalized, and placed graffiti on buildings all across America. Liberal cities did nothing to stop them and forced the police to stand by and do nothing but watch as rioters committed between one billion and two billion in damages. Some cities such as Washington, DC refused to press charges against the rioters.
But, the same Washington DC threw the book at two pro-life individuals who used chalk to create their graffiti. That is when they decided to sue for redress against the city with the case being handled by the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America. They took it to the Federal court and won by a unanimous ruling. The court ruled that the anti-graffiti law was being used unevenly with liberals facing no consequences and conservatives being overcharged. Surely, chalk can be easily erased but paint is expensive and time-consuming.
The court said:
“The District all but abandoned enforcement of the defacement ordinance during the Black Lives Matter protests, creating a de facto categorical exemption for individuals who marked ‘Black Lives Matter’ messages on public and private property. The complaint offers a number of examples. The day after Mayor Bowser’s street mural was revealed, protestors added an equal sign and ‘Defund the Police,’ so the message read ‘Black Lives Matter = Defund the Police.’”
The court also noted that:
“Police officers watched as the alteration took place and did nothing to stop it” and that even though BLM protesters didn’t have a permit or permission, “they were neither arrested nor charged under the defacement ordinance. In fact, the District left the addition in place for months, eventually removing it in mid-August.”
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELProtesters also “covered construction scaffolding outside the Chamber of Commerce with graffiti, murals, and photographs” yet were never stopped or arrested for violating the anti-graffiti ordinance.
“Specifically, 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. It is well established the government ‘may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys,’” the court argued.
Students for Life of America was pleased with the ruling.
“It’s very encouraging that there was a unanimous 3-0 decision in favor of the free speech rights of pro-life students, peacefully protesting in our nation’s capital,” Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins said in a statement. “Viewpoint discrimination is un-American, and, as the case proceeds, we look forward to learning more about how D.C. officials picked winners and losers in their enforcement. Free speech rights you’re afraid to use don’t really exist, and we will keep fighting for the rights of our students to stand up for the preborn and their mothers, and against the predatory abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood.”
