Protests

Boston Judge Turns Stupid Straight Pride Parade Fighting Into Bizarre Constitutional Drama

An attempt by the district attorney to drop charges against nonviolent protesters was overruled.

|

The dumb drama around this past weekend's "Straight Pride" march in Boston has taken an increasingly bizarre turn, as a Boston judge has taken it upon himself to overrule both prosecutors and defenders who want to drop charges against some people arrested during the parade.

It's hard to decide where to begin when describing this roiling hornet's nest of culture-war madness. The story includes not just the typical performative conflict between alt-right marchers (complete with Milo Yiannopoulos on hand as parade grand marshal) and leftist counterprotesters, but also conflicts with police unions, reformist district attorneys who want to ease up on overly harsh penalties for nonviolent crimes, and the tough-on-crime types who want to stop them.

On Saturday, around 200 tiresome alt-right trolls put on a "Straight Pride" march in Boston. They were vastly outnumbered by counterprotesters—some of which were allegedly members of antifa—and things, unsurprisingly, got messy. A confrontation between cops and counterprotesters ensued, and some officers were recorded using pepper spray on some of the crowds:

Despite the "Straight Pride" monicker, the entire affair wound up having little if anything to do with LGBT issues. It was basically just another attempt to try to provoke reactions, complete with a giant pro-Trump float endorsing a border wall.

By the end of the day, 36 people had been arrested. (It's not clear from the information made public whether these were all counterprotesters or if the number also includes marchers or others on the scene.) Four officers sustained non-serious injuries.

Some of the arrests themselves seemed suspect, and the Boston Police Department says it will be examining officers' use of force during the protest. A clip from a local ABC affiliate, WCVB, appears to show a police officer tackling and arresting a man who was simply walking around, talking on a loudspeaker attached to his cell phone, and recording what was happening. The station says he was charged with assaulting a police officer.

Suffolk County's new district attorney, Rachael Rollins, was elected in 2018 as a reformer pledging to scale back on the prosecution of low-level offenses. During the campaign, she offered a list of crimes for which her office would likely decline to press charges. The list includes simple drug possession, minor driving offenses, disorderly conduct, and any charge of resisting arrest when a person is not charged with any other crimes to justify the arrest.

Many of the arrests were simply for disorderly conduct and were not of a violent nature. It's not unusual for a D.A.'s office to decline to prosecute these arrests, and Rollins went to court to ask Boston Municipal Judge Richard J. Sinnott to dismiss charges against seven of these nonviolent offenders (including the man mentioned above who had been arrested while simply talking to the crowd).

But Sinnott refused to dismiss the cases. He even imposed bail demands for the defendants, even though they had been charged with relatively minor crimes and bail was not requested. Sinnott then poured kerosene on the fire by ordering a defense attorney removed when she attempted to explain how, under Massachusetts case law, Sinnott was improperly interfering with prosecutors' discretion.

So now Rollins has filed an emergency petition (read it here) with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, seeking an intervention to stop Sinnott from forcing these cases to move forward against prosecutors' wishes. Wednesday night she called Sinnott's behavior an "unconstitutional abuse of power"; in her petition, she wrote, "Not only will the Commonwealth be forced to proceed on a criminal case it deemed inappropriate for prosecution…but the defendant will now suffer from a criminal record created as a result of the judge's unconstitutional decision to step out from behind the bench and step into the shoes of the prosecutor."

Meanwhile, the Boston Police Patrolman Union waded in to demand that the D.A. prosecute everybody they arrested. Union chief Michael Leary complained about protesters throwing rocks and unidentified liquids at them. Leary said, "You have people screaming at them all day long that they're fascists and that they're the bad guys. How would anybody like to have projectiles thrown at them all day?"

Leary said that before the judge acted. After Sinnott made his move, union spokesperson Larry Calderone praised the decision, saying the union "couldn't be happier with the judge that's on the bench."

While I don't want to ignore the palpable frustration police officers must feel when they're forced to play referee when two groups of people are itching to get physical, de-escalation is part of the job here. They, and Sinnott, need to get out the mindset that if they just bust a few more heads, these problems will all go away. That's not how it works. Indeed, some of these protesters will take it as a badge of honor that they've been the subject of state-sanctioned violence. And arresting random groups of people will just make it harder to focus on the protesters who actually did assault officers.

Rollins was elected by the citizens of Suffolk County, and reductions in unnecessary prosecutions were an explicit focus of her campaign. If Sinnott and the police union object to that approach, the appropriate thing for them to do would be to support an opponent next election.

NEXT: A Government-Run Health Insurance Plan Would Be Less Radical Than Medicare For All. But It Still Wouldn't Work.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Many of the arrests were simply for disorderly conduct

    IOW: Many of the arrests were “simply” for “disorderly conduct”

  2. This article is BS. AntiFA (really anti-first-amendment) are terrorists and if the police won’t use enough force to deter them, victims should.

    And the real lesson to be learnt here is one that every libertarian ought to already understand: we need to abolish the monopoly on prosecution and give everyone harmed by a crime the right to pursue the case himself, even if the state wants it dismissed.

    1. People absolutely should defend themelves if attacked by Antifa or anyone. Police absolutely should not use any force against Antifa or anyone that is not necessary to enforce the law or directly protect people.

      1. Except the police disarm antifa’s foes since the right has this idiotic desire to abide by the rules while antifa just shows up and causes havoc.

        So, it’s time for the right to play the game. Don’t file permits and come masked and loaded for battle.

        1. I am not convinced that will help at all. I think it’s better not to allow the far-left assholes to define the game we are playing. If they are terrorists and you use their tactics, then you are just as much of a terrorist as they are. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology.

          I’d love to see some antifa fucks get their asses whooped (or shot) when they attack people. I do not want to see the police to use violence as a deterrent against them. Don’t forget the iron law: “Me today, you tomorrow”.

          1. If an antifa gets shot, the news will all be about the horror of right wing violence.

            Look at the Ngo incident with much of the media saying he deserved what happened to him.

          2. Only problem is…their terrorism is working. Well.

            They own several cities and conservatives (hell, randos walking around that they think MIGHT be conservatives) can be assaulted for doing nothing and the assaulters do not ever get punished.

            Why should the Right not do the same?

            The site opposes common sense things like “no masks in large gatherings” laws. So, why should I tell a Proud Boy to NOT mask up and beat the piss out of an antifa goon? Or to go to any progressive “demonstration” at a college and not just start mauling people?

            They deal with it regularly and the perps get nothing. If the “powers that be” won’t do shit to stop it, then bringing the pain is a more logical solution.

            I mean, antifa has CONGRESSPEOPLE FUNDRAISING for them.

            1. antifa has CONGRESSPEOPLE FUNDRAISING for them”

              No change from the last itineration of the DNC’s paramilitary shock troops then, back when they were called the KKK. In the 30’s Democratic congressmen were fundraising for them all the time.

            2. Why should the Right not do the same?

              Because it’s immoral behavior, whoever is doing it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

              1. Because it’s immoral behavior, whoever is doing it. Two wrongs don’t make a right

                If someone is trying to kill you, doing whatever it takes to stop them is moral.

                1. Right, but that’s not what is being suggested. I clearly said that defending yourself is appropriate. The claim I was responding to was that the right should do the same as Antifa, i.e. attack people simply because of what they advocate, not because they are an actual, direct threat to you.

          3. I disagree. It absolutely antagonises leftist groups far more that they cannot provoke the ‘alt-right’ into retaliatory violence. The term ‘alt-right’ is absolutely over used to describe anyone who does not agree with the leftist ideology which is likely to be 80-90% of Americans. It is a stupid term which nobody takes seriously. The left have become domestic terrorists who absolutely believes and practises violence as a form of protest of anything they disagree with.
            If they had not turned up at this march there would have not been any arrests and the march would have started and finished in a peaceful manner.

            1. How are we disagreeing? My point was that the Right should continue not to allow themselves to be provoked to violence.
              I think the parade was kind of silly, but is certainly something they can do and shouldn’t be assaulted for. If they started using more antifa tactics, which is what the original comment I responded to was suggesting, they lose their moral legitimacy.

        2. the right has this idiotic desire to abide by the rules

          Isn’t that a lot of what defines the right? Conservatives like law and order and rule of law. That’s kind of the whole thing. Give up on that and they are just another bunch of angry, screeching culture warriors.

    2. Yeah, seems Scott’s solution is to shoot anybody who remotely threatens you at a public event.

      Sorry, but if you won’t demand the state do it, then it is up to me and up to me alone.

    3. “This article is BS. AntiFA (really anti-first-amendment) are terrorists….”

      What, in your mind, are “terrorists” – and define them for us.

      I recommend that you include in your definition a general view of terrorism as you intend it to mean, for perhaps obvious reasons to yourself and others who read these posts and other posts.

      I also recommend that you cite sources supporting your definition.
      For example, Walter Reich’s “Origin of Terrorism” or some of Grant Wardlaw’s work may prove informative.

      1. Group of masked thugs who beat up anybody who dares to say things they do not like in the hopes of silencing all dissenting voices SOUNDS like terrorism to me, but YMMV.

        1. How about a group of masked thugs breaking on to ships and destroying their cargo?

          1. You’re aware that the Founding Fathers were absolutely terrorists AND traitors to the British.

            Not sure what your point is here. The fathers had the risk of death over their head for their actions.

          2. And they didn’t were masks, they wore disguises. Just to be clear.

            1. Duly noted.

              1. It is important to be accurate if you are going to try and use derision to counter your opponents.

            2. *wear

          3. Oh that poor tea! Beaten over the head with bicycle locks and sent to a watery grave.

      2. Your appeal to “don’t inflate the definition of terrorism” would be more meaningful if Shackford didn’t go out of his way to label the straight pride people as “alt-right”, which of course in the eyes of the media and political classes is synonymous with terrorism.

        1. We do not have an answer from the individual I questioned, and although you have provided your own opinions regarding the article, which I think that I understand to some extant, I would like the first individual to write for themselves.

          You and I can have another discussion independent of your view of the author’s article at another time, perhaps.

          1. Well la-de-frickin-da.

            1. Haha. Yeah. This dude challenges another poster to “cite sources” in support of an argument………. and then proceeds to “recommend” the sources he feels should be cited.

              A fine example of ideology in a bubble. How dooshey is that?

              Haha.

      3. Using violence to achieve political goals seems to be the fairly accepted definition.

        1. Using violence to achieve political goals seems to be the fairly accepted definition.

          Soldiermedic76,

          Note that the original commentator did reply.

          1. “did not reply”

            1. Did someone appoint you the arbiter of who can and cannot respond to comments on Reason? Or are you just incapable of debating and therefore arbitrarily defining whom you will allow to respond to your question?

              1. soldiermedic76,

                Did someone appoint you the arbiter of who can and cannot respond to comments on Reason? Or are you just incapable of debating and therefore arbitrarily defining whom you will allow to respond to your question?

                Posit.

                1. So, in other words you don’t like our responses so you are trying to arbitrarily define the parameters of the debate without any authority. Got it.v

                  1. “soldiermedic76”,

                    On the contrary, I encourage cogency.

                    1. Hardly. Your trying to set the order of debate without any authority to do so. That is hardly logical, ergo not cogent. Try again.

                    2. For example you asked for the definition of terrorism in regards to antifa. Several posters provided well accepted definitions of terrorism that clearly would include the violence perpetrated by Antifa and rather then accept these definitions you scolded the posters by claiming you weren’t speaking to them. This is hardly congruent with open or logical debate.

                    3. In fact I would label your scolding people as peurile and sophomoric. Probably even sophisticated.

                    4. Not sophisticated was supposed to sophistry.

        2. I define terrorism as the use of violence that targets innocent bystanders, in furtherance of political objectives.

          The part about targeting innocents is an important part of the definition, at least to me.

          1. Oh noes you responded to him without his written permission and you are not the original poster. Be prepared for a severe scolding and finger wagging on his part.

          2. Bramblyspam,

            I define terrorism as the use of violence that targets innocent bystanders, in furtherance of political objectives.

            The part about targeting innocents is an important part of the definition, at least to me.

            Bramblyspam, I would say that “The part about targeting innocents is an important part of the definition” is important to many of us.

        3. Using violence to achieve political goals seems to be the fairly accepted definition.

          Where?

          There’s an important factor you’ve left completely out.

          Fear.

          There’s a reason it’s called ‘terror’ism.

          Terrorism is the use of violence, intimidation, and numerous other methods to create a populace that is so afraid of what the terrorists might do that they accede to their demands.

          The terrorist groups operating successfully in the US at this moment are

          Inner-city gangs
          Islam
          Antifa

          ‘Success’ means that authorities and individuals, public or private, act to avoid incurring their wrath out of fear.

    4. A CC libertarian might very well end up putting down a few of those of those violent thugs. Which is not a bad thing.

    5. Shackford, snd other Reasonoids, really dont like certain types having the right to peacefully assemble

      I bet nary a sideways gentle aspersion was ever cast here re: nearly naked Gay Pride paraders having public sex acts. Its kust those yucky Milo Trumptards that get talked down to

  3. Shorter Reason: Be nicer to antifa. They oppose fascism so, CLEARLY, they are allies of libertarians everywhere.

    1. They are pretty consistent about not liking prosecutions for bullshit like disorderly conduct and resisting arrest when there was no reason for an arrest. Doesn’t matter who it is. This is not about Antifa. If you care about rights and civil liberties, you have to care about them for everyone, even stupid assholes who don’t care about your rights.
      If they are dropping charges against anyone who actually perpetrated acts of violence, then that is not good. But the specific cases described in the story absolutely shouldn’t be prosecuted. And it shouldn’t matter what stupid group the people involved belong to.

      1. But the specific cases described in the story absolutely shouldn’t be prosecuted.

        We don’t know that. We only know some specifics of one case.

        1. OK, assuming the story is not leaving out any major details…

      2. Zeb, I might agree. Except protesters have a history of getting not charged or not convicted even on clearly illegal actions due to political pressure.

  4. “On Saturday, around 200 tiresome alt-right trolls put on a “Straight Pride” march in Boston. They were vastly outnumbered by counterprotesters—some of which were allegedly members of antifa—and things, unsurprisingly, got messy.”

    Yes, the ones who did NOTHING are “tiresome”. but Scott NEVER tires of antifa.

    The only good member of antifa is a dead one.

    1. You sound like a terrorist.

    2. Well we see where Nick’s sentiments lie. Is he up for some network gig? It looks like he is showing them that as libertarians go that he is a ‘good one’, and ready to be their pet.

      Every network needs a token republican and a token libertarian that will behave and tow the line.

  5. This is too funny! Seems like it doesn’t take much to get Antifa to turn up at an event -just anyone considered alt-right enough will do. Much as I dislike heavy-handed police tactics, I don’t have much sympathy for antifa getting roughed up here.

    1. The social liberals will not stand for being mocked.

    2. Need to kite Antifa isn’t a kill zone and teach them a valuable lesson. At least for those allowed to survive, to tell the others what happened.

  6. We’re straight! We’re great!

    1. And ready to inseminate!

  7. Leftist demonstrators trying to get a reaction are transgressive. RIghtist demonstrators trying to get a reaction are tiresome trolls. Got it.

    1. No, they are all tiresome trolls.

  8. “On Saturday, around 200 tiresome alt-right trolls put on a “Straight Pride” march in Boston.”

    It was satire you humorless dipshit.

    1. It was satire you humorless dipshit.

      Maybe so. But even if so, still lame.

      1. Yeah, a lot of satire is also tiresome trolling. Just look at this comment section.

      2. If it angers the left, it is probably good. They deserve to suffer.

      3. Not as lame as you making a jackass out of yourself up and down this thread, fucko.

    2. I checked out their website when they first came out. I don’t see any evidence that they’re alt-right or anti LGBTQWHATEVER. They got Milo as their grand master for crissakes. And I’ve seen zero evidence that they’re promoting violence of any kind. They are obviously not trying to start a serious political movement it’s supposed to be funny. Their point is that it’s kinda silly to be “proud” of your sexual orientation whatever it is. But idiots like Antifa, Boston politicians and now Reason writers have decided they pose a grave threat to the republic.
      OT or maybe not.
      https://www.dailywire.com/news/51354/dave-chappelles-rotten-tomato-standup-reviews-are-amanda-prestigiacomo

  9. On Saturday, around 200 tiresome alt-right trolls put on a “Straight Pride” march in Boston. They were vastly outnumbered by counterprotesters…

    Certainly the counterprotesters deserve a similarly derisive name attached to them. It’s pure stupidity to have taking the parade seriously.

  10. Hey has any one click on the picture their is a message their that pops up. Or is that my imagination.

    1. You’re new here, ain’t ya? I think you just discovered alt text.

    2. “I don’t know how I was able to write this blog post given how much my eyes were rolling the entire time.”

      Apparently, humorless dipshits have seizures when they take jokes seriously. This is good news.

  11. On Saturday, around 200 tiresome alt-right trolls put on a “Straight Pride” march in Boston.

    One man’s troll is another man’s satirist.

    I don’t think “Straight Pride” is any more silly than “Gay Pride” and neither is any less silly than “Irish Pride” or “Left-handed Pride” or “20/20 Vision Pride”. It was just a random accident of birth, so what have you got to be proud of? It’s not like you accomplished anything and you had fuck-all to do with the “achievement”. At best, “It’s OK To Be White” gets it right. It’s nothing to be proud of, but there’s no shame in it either, so what’s the big deal?

    1. “Left-Handed Pride” would be less lame than “Right-Handed Pride,” since left-handed people are in the minority and are often marginalized in ways right handed people never even think about.

      That’s why “Gay Pride” is a thing and “Straight Pride” is just dumb. The point of “Gay Pride” is the assertion “I don’t need to be ashamed of who I am despite what society tells me.” “Straight Pride” is . . . what, exactly?

      If this is about combating the “Gay Agenda,” packaging straight people as just one more minority identity group demanding tolerance is actually a massive own-goal.

      1. The assertion that it is okay to be straight? Just a guess on my part. I mean no one has stated with a straight face that we need to end heterosexuality, especially heterosexual males. Oh wait, they have. Well I am sure there is no need for straight people to feel like they need to voice that it is okay to be straight.

        1. Well I am sure there is no need for straight people to feel like they need to voice that it is okay to be straight.

          Given that straight people are the overwhelming majority and that’s never going to change, yeah – I don’t think they do.

          But mainly what I’m saying is that by fostering the impression that they do need to stand up and assert themselves they are actually ceding a lot of ground that is no ways near being ceded without them doing this.

          1. Leaving aside Marisa and kochtopussy’s chattering. Are you truly stating that the majority cannot be suppressed or oppressed by the minority? Because there are several rather infamous historical cases that would discount this idea.

            1. Are you truly stating that the majority cannot be suppressed or oppressed by the minority?

              Not at all. What I’m saying is that straight people in this country are no ways near being suppressed or oppressed by gay people. Even the Masterpiece Cakeshop debacle, to me, seems to have been more about saving public accommodation laws generally than it was state power being used to benefit gays specifically.

              Because if you let public accommodation go in that case, can you really defend it in any other case? Motte and Bailey.

              But my main point is that even if there were some danger of the 90% of people who aren’t gay being oppressed by the 10% who are, the 90% embracing sexual identity politics and posturing as an oppressed group is ceding ground, in just the same way that a lot of Trump supporters are ceding ground by playing White identity politics. It may feel good in the short term, but it’s a very poor long-term strategy. Identity politics should simply be rejected.

              1. >But my main point is that even if there were some danger of the 90% of people who aren’t gay being oppressed by the 10% who are, the 90% embracing sexual identity politics and posturing as an oppressed group is ceding ground, in just the same way that a lot of Trump supporters are ceding ground by playing White identity politics.

                This doesn’t even make a lick of sense. Trumpism isn’t White identity politics, objectively (“here’s the latest black unemployment numbers” and loving the State of Israel aren’t staples of white idpol), and you’re fraudulently presenting yourself as anti-idpol when that’s disproven by your social justice rhetoric throughout the thread. You can’t explain why incidents like the Carlos Maza drama aren’t objectionable or shouldn’t be opposed by libertarians.

                1. *sigh*

                  OK, I’ll try this in good faith.

                  I didn’t say “Trumpism is White identity politics.” I said “a lot of Trump supporters are ceding ground by playing White identity politics.”

                  Because there are a lot of people playing at White identity politics at the moment, and let’s call a spade a spade – they’re Trump supporters. That doesn’t mean all Trump supporters are all about White identity politics, it means all people who are into White identity politics are Trump supporters.

                  And my point was that Straight Pride people make the same mistake that White Pride people do, which is agreeing to play a cultural game that was designed for them to lose.

                  If you still think I’m supporting identity politics, I just really don’t know what to tell you.

                  1. Because there are a lot of people playing at White identity politics at the moment,

                    No, there aren’t.

                    It just appears as if that’s true ever since the left and their allies in the media added things like support for school choice, support for Israel, support for border security, support for de-regulation, support for scientific facts and much, much more to the list of things that are ‘white identity politics’.

              2. Is it wrong for the majority bto expect the same level of civil discourse that the minority enjoys?

                1. Is it wrong for the majority bto expect the same level of civil discourse that the minority enjoys?

                  Not at all, but I don’t really see how this is related to that. I’m not saying it’s okay to attack these people, and if anyone actually did attack them, they should face consequences for it.

                  I’m agreeing with Scott’s assertion that this “Straight Pride” movement is stupid. Not because I think straight people suck, or because I don’t think there’s unhealthy hatred and a general spirit of persecution coming out of certain quarters of the left right now, but because it’s trying to play a game that it’s already lost by virtue of agreeing to play.

                  Straight people just aren’t going to win the victimhood Olympics against gay people if you’re going to collectivize the groups. That’s what I’m saying. That and that I despite some of these recent things you point to, I don’t think these are going to go any further, myself. I may be wrong, but I’m my experience things tend to swing back and forth from one extreme to another, rather than just getting more and more extreme. I think political correctness is screaming its dying gasps rather than ascending to its near victory, but I’m feeling optimistic today.

                  1. “…it’s already lost by virtue of agreeing to play.”

                    Ya, cuz “the Straights” sure weren’t losing while they WEREN’T playing…

                    Unilateral disarmament never ends with the weaponless side winning…

                  2. Square=Circle, I get what you’re saying, and I agree with the main drift of your analysis, but you’re losing track of the fact that this parade was satire. That’s crucial. They’re not playing the identity politics game–you’re right that it’s like thermonuclear war and the only winning move is not to play. Engaging in one’s own identity politics is a bad move, as you rightly point out, since it’s a game stacked against certain folks. But arguing against them is equally a bad move, since that is still playing their game and it is still stacked against the same folks (e.g., you’re arguments will be dismissed if you’re the wrong race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

                    A good move is merciless ridicule. The right move is satire.

                    Think about it like the old Kekistan meme. That was (is) brilliant, and it skewers the alt-right just as much as the ctl-left. Brilliant. It refuses to play the crooked game and just makes fun of it.

                    P.S. I hope there’s a way to submit “Kekistani” as my ethnicity on the upcoming census, and if there is I hope you all will consider doing so. I will.

              3. It seems that you’re contention is that this is driven by some fear of possible oppression. I think it’s mockery of the identity politics you oppose.

                Mockery is funny! Haha.

                1. No, it is a little of both and the reaction by the counterprotestors, Shackleford and Square = circle kind of reinforces the idea that a little fear is warranted. Mockery often is done because there is some need to mock it.

          2. Wow, you’re a fucking idiot. Who molested you as a child for you to be that fucked in the head?

        2. “I mean no one has stated with a straight face that we need to end heterosexuality”

          Oh really?

          https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/08/14/straight-men-must-date-trans-women-to-combat-hate-say-activists/

          1. Fair enough. I shouldn’t have said “no one.”

            1. So when are you going to retract the rest of the bullshit you spread up and down this thread?

      2. Why shouldn’t straight people have “pride”? Granted, not having a neural birth defect isn’t a high hurdle to clear, but at least WE clear it.

        1. Why shouldn’t straight people have “pride”?

          Why even ask the question?

          That’s my point.

          It’s not a question anyone even asked. Why do we need to answer an unasked question with a parade saying what was already obvious to everyone?

          1. >It’s not a question anyone even asked. Why do we need to answer an unasked question with a parade saying what was already obvious to everyone?

            If it’s so obvious to everyone, then why did dozens of major corporations and Hollywood celebrities publicly distance themselves from the invent and characterize it as far right extremism?

            Boston Herald: “Boston Straight Pride parade organizers receive backlash from Brad Pitt”

            Business Insider: “15 of the 25 ‘prospective corporate sponsors’ of the Straight Pride parade are joining Netflix in refusing involvement, and some are threatening legal action”

            You can say that straight pride isn’t necessary because it’s so obvious that straight people are allowed to have pride in their sexuality, but it basically ends up being circular reasoning because our societal institutions clearly made a concerted effort to marginalize them. “Straight Pride deserves to be marginalized because straight people aren’t marginalized” is wild troll logic.

            1. That you think there’s even a vague chance that straight people will be marginalized in any way shows that this is a partisan political reaction, not a reaction to anything happening in reality.

              People balk at “straight pride” for the same reason people balk at “White pride” but don’t balk at “Black pride.” Because there’s never been the slightest danger that either White people or straight people are going to be systematically marginalized in this country.

              When the dominant group has a pride parade, it’s grinding-boots-on-necks, not liberating-the-downtrodden.

              That’s why Hollywood people and businesses are distancing themselves.

              1. Okay, thanks for outing yourself as a massive SJW I guess. Must feel bad that the libertarians aren’t eating up your gender studies horse poop.

                1. Okay, thanks for outing yourself as a massive SJW I guess.

                  And you know exactly what you mean by that, I’m sure.

                  Must feel bad that the libertarians aren’t eating up your gender studies horse poop.

                  Maybe a libertarian will wander by and let me know what they think.

              2. I addressed above the idea that majorities can (and often have been) oppressed by minorities. I also have shown that several states are pushing for laws that will punish you for being heterosexual (by granting affirmative action protections to the LGBT community). I also referred to several so called liberal democracies that are actively prosecuting people for wrong think in regards to homosexuality.

              3. “there’s never been the slightest danger that either White people or straight people are going to be systematically marginalized in this country.”

                Yes, there is. It’s happening, and it is ongoing. Open up your fucking eyes.

                1. Polling shows a lot of white kids are now feeling shame for being white. They feel they should be ashamed. That is both worrying and an example of the increasing persecution of whites and white identity.

              4. No, people balk at “White pride” but don’t balk at “Black pride” because they’re racists…

      3. I would say that when one side is celebrated as revolutionaries and heroes, while the other side is systematically demonized as nazis, the side that’s getting demonized probably has more of a claim to “marginalization” than their oppressors. We just barely got finished with the most extreme “Pride Month” to date, which was characterized by YouTube going out of its way to demonetize thousands of small channels and independent content creators, including LGBT creators, at the urging of Carlos Maza, a self-identified “Marxist” and member of the LGBT community. So having the power to censor and actually marginalize the vast majority of the population is evidence that you are not actually marginalized, at least if we’re referring to the “LGBT Community” as a political construct and not LGBT people in general. This has nothing to do with Bush-era griping about a shadowy “Gay Agenda”, and is simply a sober analysis of the facts on the ground based on recent current events.

        Andrew Yang got accused of having white nationalist sympathies early in his campaign for talking about “declining birthrates”, which is obviously a straight issue.

        1. I would say that when one side is celebrated as revolutionaries and heroes, while the other side is systematically demonized as nazis, the side that’s getting demonized probably has more of a claim to “marginalization” than their oppressors.

          Would you say that about literal Nazis and Jews?

          1. Yeah, why not. At a cursory glance I don’t see a lot of Nazis in the media, government, or on Wall Street, etc…

            1. My point, you missed it. Badly.

              1. I knew exactly what your point was and surprised you by responding directly and frankly to it. Jewish overrepresentation is a thing, actually, and this isn’t reddit where people are afraid of being called mean words by you. It’s hard for you to complain about “marginalization”, on the one hand, and then handwave away all the powerful and major societal institutions being on your side as “Well, of course they’re on our side, we’re marginalized n shit”.

                1. Nope. Still missed it.

              2. Your only fucking point in this entire thread has been on top of your vacuous head, fucko.

      4. When did anyone taking part in this parade state they were anti-gay you moron. FFS they had Milo as their parade marshal just to prove their only purpose was to take pride in being straight. This march in no way was meant to diminish any gay person from being proud to gay.
        Only a fuckwit such as yourself would class this march as being against the ‘gay agenda’ and you obviously missed the entire point of the march completely

      5. I’m sorry, but are you so dense as to not realize that at its core this is essentially a 1st Amendment demonstration? No matter your perception on the stupidity or the frivolousness of the “Straight Pride Parade” a very large part of the parade seems to be to poke fun at the idea of identity politics. I’m sure there are some people that feel attacked as a straight white person given the rhetoric from the far left, but this seems a rather obvious tongue in cheek joke. At the same time, the straight pride parade a shining example of the double standards employed by the left regarding the rights of the individual as well as the rights of groups. The far left seems to support others rights only when they fit within the increasingly narrow definition of what the left defines as acceptable. So many of your replies are bogged down in semantics and pseudo intellectual garbage that you miss the forest for the trees.

  12. For a long time the LGBTQ+ crowd have been stating that they need gay pride parades to have their voices heard and that the world accepts heterosexuality. So someone actually organizes a “straight pride” parade, a la gay pride parade and suddenly they are the tiresome ones? Shackleford have you thought that through? Let me see you call gay pride parades (which are pretty ubiquitous and have been around for decades, and often involve downright vulgarity) tiresome. Disclaimer, I have no problem with anyone’s sexuality and how they wish (within reason) to display it. In fact I have had bisexual encounters of my own and have at times described myself as either bisexual or bi-situational.

    1. Are straight people having a hard time getting their voices heard?

      But yes, I agree with you about Pride Parades being a little over-packaged as a form of cultural resistance, as they’ve gotten pretty ubiquitous and don’t shock people any more.

      And I’ve known a number of gay and bi people who don’t like Pride exactly because, as you point out, there’s always such a contingent of folks in the parade who present LGBT as a sub-set of kink, which is the opposite of what the Pride movement was supposed to accomplish. I think they would be much more productive affairs if it were a stream of totally normal-looking people in business attire.

      1. Are straight people having trouble getting their voices heard? Well, we don’t have much evidence one way or the other, since straight people have rarely felt the need to speak up. But when someone actually does organize a straight pride parade, they are mobbed, attacked and then derided by a supposed Libertarian. So it certainly could be argued that it is growing more difficult for straight people to have a voice.
        And my larger point about gay pride parades is are the really needed anymore than straight pride parades?

        1. But when someone actually does organize a straight pride parade, they are mobbed, attacked and then derided by a supposed Libertarian

          This is far from the first “straight pride” parade that has happened. This is the first I’ve ever heard of one getting mobbed by counter-protesters.

          But as general rule, the media is full of straight people speaking their minds all the time with no self-consciousness at all.

          And my larger point about gay pride parades is are the really needed anymore than straight pride parades?

          Probably not, but if gay pride parades are unnecessary, how unnecessary are straight pride parades?

          1. >But as general rule, the media is full of straight people speaking their minds all the time with no self-consciousness at all.

            Media is also full of “white” people bashing lower-class white people and men stoking gender division between men and women. So, I’m not sure how impressive it is that the rich and powerful are having an easy time getting wives and girlfriends if they’re essentially preaching anti-natalism for everyone else.

            >Probably not, but if gay pride parades are unnecessary, how unnecessary are straight pride parades?

            Apparently a little more necessary if they’re more controversial?

            1. i>Media is also full of “white” people bashing lower-class white people and men stoking gender division between men and women.

              They may not need a parade, either.

              Apparently a little more necessary if they’re more controversial?

              Why would that be the case? Stalinist rallies would also be more controversial.

              1. I for one would be far more tolerant of “Stalinist” rallies than ancom ones considering that the authleft doesn’t seem to have the same recent history of being violent, hate-filled terrorists.

                1. I was pointing out the logical trouble with your assertion, not asking for your opinion of what ideologies you personally find controversial.

                  1. Stalinism is controversial because Stalinism is a fringe and marginal ideology, and therefore we can say the same about straight pride. So, if your standard for judging whether public demonstrations are “necessary” or not involves marginalization, then we can say that straight pride clearly fits the bill.

                    1. Stalinism is controversial because Stalinism is a fringe and marginal ideology, and therefore we can say the same about straight pride

                      This is what passes for logic in your parts, huh?

                    2. Which part of that statement do you disagree with?

                    3. Which part of that statement do you disagree with?

                      That “Stalinism is controversial because Stalinism is a fringe and marginal ideology” entails the conclusion “therefore we can say the same about straight pride.”

                      It doesn’t. Logic. You see?

                    4. Straight pride isn’t marginal? Where’s your evidence, then.

                    5. Straight pride isn’t marginal? Where’s your evidence, then.

                      *facepalm*

                    6. “Facepalm” again, another great argument.

          2. “But as general rule, the media is full of straight people speaking their minds all the time with no self-consciousness at all.” Speaking their minds on being heterosexual?

            1. Speaking their minds on being heterosexual?

              Seems like at least partly you’re coming from the perspective that we don’t really need big parades where people loudly scream out about who they like to have sex with and how, and on that we agree. As I mentioned above, I’ve known more than one gay person who dislikes Pride because so much of Pride is also about kink and open sexuality which they think is counterproductive to the movement to try to get people not to see homosexuality as a perversion.

              In that context, I do see a certain trolling value in the notion of straight people marching around in an effort to get people to see how some might find this practice a little weird (although, free speech and all – as long as they’re not forcing anyone . . . , etc.).

              But I think Straight Pride a very bad idea for all the reasons I go into above.

              1. >Seems like at least partly you’re coming from the perspective that we don’t really need big parades where people loudly scream out about who they like to have sex with and how, and on that we agree. As I mentioned above, I’ve known more than one gay person who dislikes Pride because so much of Pride is also about kink and open sexuality which they think is counterproductive to the movement to try to get people not to see homosexuality as a perversion.

                Gonna go off on a limb here and say that your anti-Pride friends don’t find Straight Pride to be particularly offensive.

              2. *probably don’t

              3. I think pride parades are stupid because no one is actively oppressing homosexuals anymore on the US. But if society accepts gay pride parades it is hypocritical of Shackleford and his ilk to deride heterosexual pride. Your defense seems to be gays were once oppressed but heterosexuals will never be oppressed. When provided examples that this is a misbegotten idea, you blew off this possible canaries in the proverbial coal mine. At some point enough canaries may die to prove that this may be a larger problem than you’re willing to admit. The violent reaction to the straight pride event is evidence that at least some are willing to punish people for celebrating their heterosexuality. That doesn’t give you pause?

                1. I think pride parades are stupid because no one is actively oppressing homosexuals anymore on the US.

                  I think that depends how you define your terms. If you define “oppress” in such a way as to say “straight people are oppressed by gay people,” I think it’s very hard to use the same definition and say “gay people aren’t oppressed by straight people.”

                  Your defense seems to be gays were once oppressed but heterosexuals will never be oppressed.

                  No. I’m saying once you’ve agreed to play the collective oppression game, do you think you get to say “historical oppression doesn’t count?”

                  The violent reaction to the straight pride event is evidence that at least some are willing to punish people for celebrating their heterosexuality. That doesn’t give you pause?

                  I don’t like violent reactions to anyone’s speech. But this doesn’t seem to me like it’s happening with enough frequency to cause panic.

                  1. It isn’t just straight, it is a long list of attacks against anything seen as traditional. And I am not saying heterosexuals are completely persecuted, but there are worrying signs it is becoming much more accepted to do so.

                  2. Thus my canary in the coal mine euphemisim.

          3. But as general rule, the media is full of straight people speaking their minds all the time with no self-consciousness at all.

            Well, no, not really.

            But as general rule, the media is full of people speaking their minds all the time with no self-consciousness at all.

            There. Now it’s right.

            Big difference.

            And it is important to note that while straight people don’t really speak up for being straight–the reaction when they do suggests that there IS some kind of issue here.

            As if yes, they WERE being marginalized–they just weren’t ever supposed to notice or do anything about it.

            The same issue becomes apparent when someone says ‘it’s ok to be white’.

            There is clearly something going on that the big, dumb, majority wasn’t supposed to notice.

  13. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► businessinsider.com

    1. It was all downhill from “Let’s Get Physical,” eh?

  14. Hey Scott, you know it’s hard to take you seriously when you’re so blatantly obvious in your bias. You’re not a journalist, you’re an overpaid blogger that spouts garbage.

  15. I would really like to see how Rollins’s office prosecutes these if she is forced to go forward. I can imagine a whole sitcom montage of prosecutors deliberately failing to make their cases and force an acquittal

    Prosecutor attempts to deliver opening statement via Instagram
    Prosecution rests, then promptly falls asleep in the courtroom
    Prosecutor shows up to court in golf clothes with clubs, says he has a tee time in 10 minutes
    and so on

  16. The dumb drama around this past weekend’s “Straight Pride” march in Boston has taken an increasingly bizarre turn

    “Fucking heteros I wish they’d take their melodramatic bullshit somewhere other than the city streets”, eh Shackford?

    I don’t know how you type any of your posts with such limp wrists and incessant hand gestures.

    1. Will someone please let the heteros finally come out of the shadows?

      1. Will someone please let the heteros finally come out of the shadows?

        I know, right? Non-stop melodramatic bullshit.

        1. I mean no one has ever been boycotted, or fired for questioning the aims of the LGBTQ+ activist. Or for supporting heterosexual marriage or traditional Biblical views of homosexuality.

      2. Should heterosexuals have to wait to be in the shadows before they can be as proud of their sexuality as homosexuals?

        1. This is volunteering to be in the shadows.

          1. Kinda wondering where you are both at.

            I really do get, over the past decades, where gay whatever was no longer a thing to hide be ashamed of or discriminated against. It took a lot to get there and good for these folks.

            I can see where it could tip the other way. We work together for example. You have the same expectations and need to run the job as imperfectly or well as I do. Cmon let’s get this done and get paid. I have not seen any special anything in my experience.

            So who cares? Hold all the parades you want. I can’t stand parades. Boring mostly.

            1. My point is that Square = circles and Shackleford’s automatic assumption that straight pride parades are stupid because straight people don’t have anything to worry about is short sighted. It may not reach the level of gay oppression of the past, but there are at least some reasons to be concerned about the increasing acceptance of denigrating heterosexuals by some (many?) in the progressive camp.v

      3. You sound like someone that desperately needs the shit beaten out of them for being a fucking idiot.

  17. I am genuinely curious so I have a serious question for the lawyers. The prosecutors said they did not want to press charges. The judge here decided on his own to press forward with charges, regardless. Hell, the judge even set bail.

    So….What happens if the prosecutors just never show up to argue the case? In essence, they tell the judge, “You cannot compel us to argue a case we never brought to the court”. What happens, then? Are the prosecutors found in contempt of court? Do they need to release the inmate? Has there ever been a case where a case was dropped because the prosecutors just said, “The hell with it?”

    I mean, the answer seems obvious….but is it?

    1. IANAL (and am damn sure not from Massachusetts), but if the law says the DA has to ask the judge for a nol pros, then doesn’t it follow that the judge is allowed to answer yes or no?

      I suppose it could be said that the judges usually rubber stamp the DA’s request, but not this time….

    2. Prosecutors are bound by ethics to not prosecute a case they can not prove (prosecutorial misconduct) but that is often thrown out in PC cases like (false) DV allegations and under mandatory arrest laws. A Judge is supposed to use the facts presented before him in an impartial manner (I know we are all laughing at the “supposed to” now). Police arrest on a “reasonable cause to believe” an offense has been committed, prosectors are supposed to prosecute only those cases where a case can be presented “beyond a reasonable doubt” and the Judge is supposed to ensure all is done fairly, just, and within the constitution. Apparently none of that exists in Boston.

  18. I have no idea whether or not the arrests were legit, but it appears to me that judge desperately needs to be impeached.

    1. ^ This. Immediately.

  19. “the Boston Police Patrolman Union waded in to demand that the D.A. prosecute everybody they arrested. Union chief Michael Leary complained about protesters throwing rocks and unidentified liquids at them. Leary said, “You have people screaming at them all day long that they’re fascists and that they’re the bad guys.”

    So the cop is tired of all cops getting harassed, presumably, for the actions of “a few bad apples”, so he decides that all protesters arrested should be prosecuted (regardless of the facts of their individual cases), because some unidentified “bad apple” protesters were throwing things? perhaps the irony escapes him.

    1. Perhaps the protesters who were not “throwing things” were not arrested. Perhaps logic escapes you.

  20. Glad to be Straight, no one has better things to do?

  21. Damn, Scott, that alt-text just sounds faggy, y’know?

    Like an offended old queen who’s trying to sound above it all and failing.

    But I feel sad for you Scott. There were more LGBT people IN the straight pride parade than there were among the leftists protesting it. You’re losing, prog.

    1. Like an offended old queen who’s trying to sound above it all and failing.

      But I feel sad for you Scott. There were more LGBT people IN the straight pride parade than there were among the leftists protesting it. You’re losing, prog.

      And the Straight Pride Parade shows no promise of proliferating to every major city in the country, compelling civil servants everywhere to participate in sexual harassment against their will, disrupting traffic and costing taxpayer dollars, etc., etc.

      Like if the Straight Pride Parade proceeded from the nearest Starbucks to the nearest pub while staying entirely on the sidewalk and managed to get some antifa-types arrested there wouldn’t be a fainting couch comfortable enough to cushion the blow to Scott’s delicate sensibilities.

  22. OK, here are the crimes the prosecutor wants to ignore or minimize, from their Web site:

    CHARGES TO BE DECLINED
    Charges for which the Default is to Decline Prosecuting (unless supervisor permission is obtained).

    Trespassing
    Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
    Larceny under $250
    Disorderly conduct
    Disturbing the peace
    Receiving stolen property
    Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
    Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
    Wanton or malicious destruction of property
    Threats – excluding domestic violence
    Minor in possession of alcohol
    Drug possession
    Drug possession with intent to distribute
    A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
    A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge
    Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors.

    Note: this is essentially already happening for drug possession cases in Roxbury and Dorchester District Court.

    1. “If Sinnott and the police union object to that approach, the appropriate thing for them to do would be to support an opponent next election.”

      No, if the prosecutor doesn’t want to prosecute trespassing, receiving stolen property, etc., then she should ask the legislature to legalize that sort of thing.

      1. So you want to completely overturn the principle of prosecutorial discretion.

        Theoretically possible, but it would require a complete rewrite of, well, the entirety of the criminal code at state, federal and multiple local levels, most judicial precedents, the entire concept of administrative law, and I think the whole idea of common law.

        1. “the whole idea of common law”

          The common law allowed private criminal prosecutions. In getting rid of private prosecutions, American states “improved” (if you want to call it that) on the common law.

        2. “So you want to completely overturn the principle of prosecutorial discretion.”

          Why don’t you define the principle you’re defending, and then I’ll tell you if I want to “overthrow” it.

          If the principle is that the prosecutor can ignore property crimes, or other crimes they don’t want to prosecute, then certainly I’d want to overthrow such a principle.

          If the principle is that the prosecutor has only limited resources and can’t fully prosecute all crimes, so they have to prioritize, then assuming the prosecutor is acting in good faith and not as an excuse to demand more funding than they need, of course I don’t want to overthrow such a principle.

          1. OK, in this story the prosecutor makes the right noises about focusing on more serious crimes, but she also says this:

            “Rollins went on to say her pledge to not prosecute certain misdemeanors and low-level felonies is about leveling the playing field in the criminal justice system….

            “”“Why I’m standing here as your Suffolk County DA is because of the communities that have been forgotten or ignored, poor communities, urban communities, overwhelmingly black or brown communities,””

            https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/04/this-is-precisely-what-suffolk-county-wants-da-rachael-rollins-stands-behind-pledge-not-to-prosecute-low-level-crimes.html

            This suggests that the problem won’t be solved by offering her office more money to prosecute property crimes.

            Incidentally, it’s a good thing people of color never have their stuff stolen or their property trespassed on, otherwise they might be harmed by this new woke policy of minimal prosecution.

          2. Prosecutorial discretion is pretty well defined already. The short version is that prosecutors can choose to not prosecute any crimes they want. That has always been the rule. Whether they are doing so because of prioritization choices or out of principle is irrelevant. They are also indistinguishable – any choice I make on principle could be respun as a prioritization choice with trivial ease.

            Prosecutors simply can not be compelled by the legal system to prosecute a case they don’t want to. And you wouldn’t want them to, either. Any such compulsion would create too great an incentive to sandbag a case. Not only does not waste resources, it loads up the case law with bad precedents by undercutting the advantages of our adversarial system.

            The only consequences to a prosecutor “not doing his job” are those imposed by his bosses – he can be fired if he reports to some higher Executive Branch officer or we voters can fire him if he’s directly elected. But those are controls we can only exercise after the fact.

            1. “They are also indistinguishable – any choice I make on principle could be respun as a prioritization choice with trivial ease.”

              That’s an argument against trusting what prosecutors say, and against the possibility that they will observe good-faith distinctions. If your argument is true, it means prosecutors have to be more closely watched, not that they should be given extra discretion because they can always lie about it anyway.

              “Prosecutors simply can not be compelled by the legal system to prosecute a case they don’t want to.”

              OK, I agree they shouldn’t be trusted to handle cases where their bias is obvious, and this would include cases where they don’t want to prosecute a guilty person. Thus, appoint an independent counsel for those cases where the prosecutor won’t do her job.

              1. re: “cases where they don’t want to prosecute a guilty person”

                You are assuming your premise. The person is not guilty until a court actually says so.

    2. Thanks for that. Scott apparently declined to do his homework again.

    3. This prosecutor in Boston, Rachael Rollins, is another progressive funded by Soros. Same as Foxx in Chicago. We know how things are working out there.

  23. Disturbing the peace is the thin end of the wedge…if she can get away with ignoring that sort of crime she’s made specifically clear that she’ll try to avoid prosecuting shoplifting, small thefts, most threats, and wanton/malicious destruction of property. Unless in her discretion the prosecution seems like a good idea to her personally (e. g., destroying her property, as opposed to destroying some random uninfluential citizen’s property.

  24. Ever notice how these things always turn out to be a sausage fest?

    I think they put the one female in front and she just showed up hoping.

    All the smart straight guys are at the “people for cute cuddly puppies march” or something.

    1. Ever notice how these things always turn out to be a sausage fest?

      Have you collected enough evidence to *prove* they always turn out to be sausage fests or are you still just “conducting research”?

      1. S/he’s bullshitting.

      2. Are you flirting with me mad.casual ?

        Sorry, I’m not. Flattered.

        BTW in my day a “sausage fest” was when you showed up to a party and there were no girls. As in “this is a f**n sausage fest. I thought the sorority was coming over”.

        Perhaps you are focusing on something else. Cool with me dude.

  25. A straight pride parade?
    How dare these shameless heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality in public!

    1. The funny thing about this is that if AntiFa and other protesters had just ignored this, no one would have been arrested, no one would have heard about this, and we wouldn’t even be here discussing it at all.

      AntiFa did more to bring our attention to this than anything that the Straight Pride Parade did!

      They would do well to learn about something called the Streisand Effect….

      1. Well, if antifa’s goal was to *avoid* publicity, they failed.

        But what if they’re actually *seeking* publicity?

  26. Alt right? What biased reporting. The attorney fighting for the permit is a liberal who supports Elizabeth Warren and the right to free speech. The attorney in contempt was warned NOT to go soap box in the court, then she went soap box. It is common for judges to contempt lawyers, let them cool their heels, then dismiss further action. it is a common practice of police to arrest disorderly persons to stop a riot and for the charges to be dismissed at arraignment as the disorderly only occurs due to the counter protests and the emotional state at the time. But in not dismissing the charges on the recommendation of the prosecutor the Judge overstepped his boundaries for pray tell, what evidence will be presented if the prosecutor presents none?

  27. Pro Antifa terrorism.
    Against terrorists being prosecuted for their crimes.
    Smears 200 people as “alt-right”

    Reason is a toilet.

    1. And yet there are those who keep returning for the same reason as the actual one.

  28. People are getting tired of antifa’s bullshit. Maybe a few days in the clink will give them a message. Sorry, not sorry.

    1. Boston doesn’t want to turn into the Portland of the East coast. Among the basic reasons for governments, laws, cops, judges and jails is the maintenance of public order. This judge apparently understands that, even if the prosecutors there don’t.

  29. Excuse me, but claiming that something is “Alt-Right” does not make it so. You have a group of people showing up, essentially for satire of the concept of “Group Pride” events. There were no instances of violence from the right.

    However, you have a number of instances of violence from the left. Four officers were injured. The group that perpetrated this has a history of violent behavior, including attacking journalists and throwing concrete-laced milkshakes at both right-wingers

    You are attempting to create equivalence where there is none. On one hand, you have a gathering for political satire. On the other, you have a group that the FBI has listed as a terrorist organization, who has gathered explicitly to try and stop the speech of their political opponents, and who came armed and assaulted police officers.

  30. SCOTT SHACKFORD.

    I wanted to read this. I honestly did. But within the first few paragraphs the FECKLESS & PATHETIC bias elucidated what a worthless waste of time it would be to read anything you have written because clearly you suck as a writer.

    Are you another Psyops school trained Social Engineering influencer?

    You should go back to school and get an education in Logic. So you can fully understand the Logically Axiomatic nature of language.

    Your feckless little ANTIFA – ANTI FIRST AMENDMENT friends are 21st Century Brown Shirts. Though certainly ANTIFA homo orgies put the original Brown Shirts to shame.

    Your pathetically peurile dimwit rethorical Fallacies of Logic, Sophistry, and irrefutable pandering is great demonstration of how worthless your writing contribution to the dialogue.

  31. If you read the prosecutor’s petition to overrule the judge’s decision, you’ll find out that the reason why her request for nolle prosequi (basically declining to prosecute) was declined by the judge was because under Massachusetts law, she’s required to notify the victims of a crime before filing which in this case the judge said would be the parade organizers (the people who paid to have an event which was disrupted by the illegal actions of the people who showed up to stop it). The prosecutor argued that they weren’t really victims because they only suffered “financial harm” even though (in her own petition) the statute says that a victim is “any natural person who suffers direct or threatened physical, emotional, or financial harm as the result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime.”

    So it kind of makes you wonder if she follows through on her campaign pledge not to prosecute shoplifting, trespassing, larceny and wanton or malicious destruction of private property if she’ll comply with the law and notify the victims of those crimes when her office refuses to prosecute because, hey they just lost money, so that makes it okay, right?

    1. Gee you’d think a journalist might actually take note of those facts.

      But Reason apparently doesn’t hire those. they stick to regurgitating this sort of stuff from ‘tiresome’ ‘trolls.’

      1. I mean, what else is this article other than an “attempt to try to provoke reactions”?

  32. Many of the arrests were simply for disorderly conduct
    https://bandarsamkong.com adalah agen poker online, bandarqq, dominoqq, aduq, slot terbaik dan terpercaya menggunakan uang asli. bonus turnover 0.3% dan bonus refferal 20%

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.