Anti-Riot Act Partly Upheld, Partly Struck Down

The Ninth Circuit decides a case involving "Rise Above Movement" white supremacists who participated in riots in California.

From U.S. v. Rundo, decided yesterday by the Ninth Circuit (Judges Richard Paez and Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and District Judge Jon S. Tigar):

"[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press" protect "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio. At its core, the [Anti-Riot Act criminalizes using interstate commerce or communications] "with intent"

(1) to incite a riot; or

(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot ….

["Riot" is defined as:] a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

"[T]o incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

(1) Instigate: "Instigate" means "to goad or urge forward : set on : PROVOKE, INCITE." Likewise, "incite" means "to move to a course of action : stir up : spur on : urge on." Like the Fourth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit, we conclude that speech that "incites" or "instigates" a riot satisfies Brandenburg's imminence requirement.

(2) Urging: Urge "means simply to 'encourage,' 'advocate,' 'recommend,' or 'advise … earnestly and with persistence.'" We agree with the Fourth Circuit that, "because earnestness and persistence don't suffice to transform such forms of protected advocacy into speech that is likely to produce imminent lawless action, Brandenburg renders the purpose of 'urging' others to riot overbroad."

(3) Organize: The verb "organize" is similarly overbroad. Like "urge," "organize" is not susceptible to a limiting construction that brings it within Brandenburg's strictures….

(4) Encourage and promote: Moreover, like the Fourth Circuit, we conclude that the First Amendment protects speech tending to "encourage" or "promote" a riot. Black's Law Dictionary defines "encourage" as meaning "[t]o instigate; to incite to action; to embolden; to help" and cross-references aiding and abetting. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "encourage" is similar but also includes "to recommend, advise." The latter definition fails Brandenburg's imminence requirement. The same is true for "promote," which is synonymous with "encourage."

(5) Effect of § 2102(b) limitations: Additionally, § 2102(b) states that the terms in question "shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts." The Defendants argue that the double negative cancels itself out and that the Act therefore proscribes mere "advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts." We agree. The First Amendment protects that kind of advocacy.

We recognize that the Seventh Circuit [in a 1972 decision] construed the exclusion to merely "forestall any claim … [that] advocacy and assertion constitute mere advocacy of ideas or expression of belief excluded under" § 2102(b) in the context of "a truly inciting, action-propelling speech [that] include[d] advocacy of acts of violence and assertion of the rightness of such acts." We do not believe that the words of the Act will reasonably bear that construction.

(6) Aid or abet: The Defendants assert that "to aid or abet any person in inciting … a riot" (from subparagraph 2101(a)(4)) is subject to the same definition as "to incite a riot" (from subparagraph 2101(a)(1)). Thus, for the foregoing reasons, aiding or abetting inciting a riot satisfies Brandenburg's imminence requirement.

In sum, subparagraphs (1), (2), and (4) of § 2101(a) do not violate the First Amendment except insofar as subparagraph (2) prohibits speech tending to "organize," "promote," or "encourage" a riot, and § 2102(b) expands the prohibition to "urging" a riot and to mere advocacy….

Defendants assert that the very definition of a "riot" is unconstitutional. We do not agree.

A "riot" requires either one or more "acts of violence" or one or more "threats" to commit one or more acts of violence. The completed acts of violence (or the threatened acts of violence) must "constitute a clear and present danger of, or … result in, damage or injury to the property … or to the person of any other individual."

Acts of violence are not protected under the First Amendment. Nor are "true threats," which involve subjective intent to threaten. "True threats" are not limited to bodily harm only but also include property damage.

"[W]e do not hesitate to construe" a statute punishing threats "to require … intent" to threaten. By requiring proof of "intent" and proof that the overt act was committed "for [the] purpose" of a riot, which also indicates subjective intent, Congress limited the "threats" part of the definition of a riot to "true threats." Thus, a "riot," as defined in the Act, is not protected under the First Amendment….

[With the unconstitutional portions] severed, § 2101(a) [criminalizes interstate travel or communication] "with intent"

(1) to incite a riot; or

(2) to participate in, or carry on a riot; or

(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot ….

As used in this chapter, the term "to incite a riot", or "to participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief.

With the above construction and severance, the Act is not facially overbroad. Rather, the Act prohibits unprotected speech that instigates (incites, participates in, or carries on) an imminent riot [and thus constitutes incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio], unprotected conduct such as committing acts of violence in furtherance of a riot, and aiding and abetting of that speech or conduct….

[T]he freedoms to speak and assemble which are enshrined in the First Amendment are of the utmost importance in maintaining a truly free society. Nevertheless, it would be cavalier to assert that the government and its citizens cannot act, but must sit quietly and wait until they are actually physically injured or have had their property destroyed by those who are trying to perpetrate, or cause the perpetration of, those violent outrages against them. Of course, the government cannot act to avert a perceived danger too soon, but it can act before it is too late. In short, a balance must be struck. Brandenburg struck that balance, and the Act (after the elisions) adheres to the result….

Judge Fernandez dissented as to the striking of the "organizing" and "urging" language; he would have read urging as limited to incitement of imminent riot, and thus as consistent with Brandenburg, and he added, as to "organizing":

In the context of an event or activity, like a riot, "organize" means "to unify into a coordinated functioning whole : put in readiness for coherent or cooperative action," or "to arrange by systematic planning and coordination of individual effort." Simply put, "organize" means "[t]o arrange (personally); to take responsibility for providing (something); to 'fix up.'" I agree with the Fourth Circuit that "speech tending to organize a riot serves not to persuade others to engage in a hypothetical riot, but rather to facilitate the occurrence of a riot that has already begun to take shape," indicating imminence.

It is far from mere speech. It is the very purposeful, physical, and concrete action of structuring people into an intentionally physically violent force, which is at least on the brink of carrying out its mission. Although it might be reasonable to organize some events into the far future, as I see it, organizing a riot does not reasonably lend itself to that interpretation.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

This why algorithms must replace these lawyer dumbasses on the bench, the stupidest of the lawyers, who are the stupidest people in our land. They are expressing their personal feelings and biases, and applying them differently to different people.

[jdgalt1]

This seems a mostly good result, but in light of the last year of news (and of the choices most local authorities have made about whom to prosecute with these laws) it suggests some questions that appear not to have been answered by this ruling.

(1) Suppose a person or group of friends know in advance that others intend to commit rioting, and take action to organize a fund to bail out or defend anyone on their side who gets arrested. Does that constitute "aiding and abetting" in violation of the Act? Does this depend on whether the persons who set up these funds know some or all of the individuals who will benefit from them?

(2) Suppose a person or group holding partisan views arranges for an ally to be elected as prosecutor, on the understanding that others allied with their views who may commit rioting will not be charged or will not be prosecuted? Is that actionable "aiding and abetting" by either the prosecutor or the one who got him elected?

I hope these answers are yes. Because if they are not, then a lot of legitimate rights have no remedies to back them up.

[Jimmy the Dane]

We all know how these laws will be applied. BLM will get a pass from local Soros funded prosecutors, while anyone to the right of that will be branded a "white supremacist" and have the book thrown at them.

The new religion of "woke" or "anti-racism" is actually the New Racism. In order to end discrimination we must put discrimination into overdrive, but focus on the "right" people this time.

And, as is the conclusion with most liberal cultural marxist things, people will be more miserable and unhappy when it is all said and done.

[Krychek_2]

I was wondering how long it would be before someone chimed in with "But what about BLM." Thank you, Jimmy, for restoring my faith in the right's inability to make an argument that does start with "But what about."

I looked up these guys on line since I had never heard of them. They are a real piece of work. They train militarily for the specific purpose of showing up at rallies and marches and committing violence. They intentionally set out to shed blood. They are about as good a poster child for having anti-riot laws as I can imagine.

[Krychek_2]

Sorry, that *doesn't* start with "But what about."

[Longtobefree]

So antifa all over again?

[tylertusta]

I like it when the left proclaims that equal protection under the law is mere whataboutism. I like it because it really underscores how they are truly devoid of empathy, principles, or basic standards of human decency.

So, please, continue. Tell us how certain groups of people are beneath consideration of equal protection under the law. If you want to invoke an emotional argument, or perhaps some weak-sauce invocation of Justice Holmes, then now is the time!

[Krychek_2]

A lot of the time, the what aboutism isn't even on point. Is there evidence that Antifa trains militarily for the specific purpose of going to other people's rallies and committing violence? I'm not aware of any. So even if what aboutism is a legitimate argument, it doesn't apply here because the facts are different. And one huge problem with what aboutism is it leads to a lot of sloppily reasoned comparisons that, on further examination, really aren't comparable.

And it's not that anyone is more equal than anyone else. I and most liberals would say that Antifa and BLM should be prosecuted when they break the law, which they sometimes do. If someone is torching a building, they should go to prison no matter which side they're on. I think most liberals believe that too; we have our lunatic fringe that may not see it that way, but an ideology is not judged by its lunatic fringe.

And as I've said on other threads, the problem with what aboutism is that everyone gets a free pass because you can always find someone on the other side who's also behaving badly. So Hitler can't be held to account because what about Stalin, and Stalin can't be held to account because what about Hitler.

If you want to have a conversation about BLM, fine. This conversation, however, is not that conversation.

[Rossami]

re: "I’m not aware of any."

Then you really weren't paying attention. Even here on Reason, there were multiple article mentioning seminars on defeating police surveillance, communication threads dedicated to 'rallying' to counterprotest and disrupt, discussions of specific disruption tactics, etc. You claim that "the facts are different". I can only conclude that you believe that because you are keeping yourself willfully ignorant of the abuses of those calling themselves antifa.

You later argue against comparisons that really aren't comparable but in the next breath say that liberals should not be judged by their lunatic fringe while attributing the behaviors and beliefs of the right's lunatic fringe to everyone right of, well, you. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Hypocrisy deserves to get called out. Whataboutism is not a claim of innocence. It's an observation that your opponent has unclean hands and therefore suspect motives.

[Krychek_2]

"Defeating police surveillance, . . . rallying to counterprotest and disrupt" are not the same as committing violent acts, though there is some overlap. All of those can be done peacefully. Note: that doesn't mean they always were done peacefully, just that that doesn't necessarily show violent intent. So, the two cases may be on point, but you've not yet proven that they are.

When did I say that the right should be judged by its lunatic fringe? I certainly don't recall saying that. I made a joke about the right not being able to make an argument that doesn't start with "what about", but that's not exactly imputing the right's lunatic fringe to the entire right. So, like I was saying about sloppy comparisons . . .

And in politics it's a given that one's opponent will have unclean hands most of the time, but that doesn't mean that what they're claiming about their opponents isn't true. Or that what about is an answer. You've said before that you have kids; just how much credence does finger pointing at siblings -- who frequently have unclean hands -- carry when you're disciplining someone for something they actually did?

[Life of Brian]

just how much credence does finger pointing at siblings — who frequently have unclean hands — carry when you’re disciplining someone for something they actually did?

In theory, it shouldn't matter. In practice, if you're disciplining one child for behavior you've overlooked in another, of course the child is going to appeal to that (perhaps even through genuine confusion about what the rules actually are). And then you have a decision point on your hands.

If you follow through with the punishment and say of course you should have punished the sibling when they did it, you'd sure better actually do it next time, or your credibility as an impartial disciplinarian goes down the tubes fast. I think that's the general stage of the dynamic that tends to get debated around here.

[Krychek_2]

Life of Brian, that's true, but the claim that only one side is being disciplined here is nonsense on stilts. BLM and Antifa rioters have been arrested and prosecuted when the authorities have been able to figure out who they are. So have the January 6 capitol rioters. What I'm seeing is that the authorities are going after people on both sides who break the law. Of course there are also people on both sides who are getting away with it; that's life. But this idea that it's been one sided is just not true. Which then makes me wonder about the motives of the what about lobby, who insist, in the face of contrary evidence, that their side is the only one being given a time out.

And what I'm hearing from the what about lobby isn't that the other side needs to be disciplined; it's that their side should avoid discipline, which is an entirely different issue. If law enforcement is behaving with a double standard, then that needs to be addressed, but "we're no worse than you are" is hardly an exoneration.

[Life of Brian]

BLM and Antifa rioters have been arrested and prosecuted when the authorities have been able to figure out who they are. So have the January 6 capitol rioters.

The last statistic I saw was that over 90% of Portland rioters who were arrested were released without charges. I guess we'll see how that works out for the Capitol arrests. But even if true, that doesn't seem to speak to the ultimate issue when there's a significant lack of parity in the level of effort to identify people in the first place.

As we know from the past few weeks, the feds and local law enforcement have been poring over video footage of the Capitol crowd, circulating hundreds of photos to try to crowdsource identifications, and even using cellphone geolocation data to pull in random people for questioning. In general, the sort of thing you do when you really really really want to identify people.

In Portland, the feds were... unwelcome. You may recall in particular the howling around here when the National Guard was deployed into Portland and even tried to use some basic investigative techniques to restore some semblance of order. And local law enforcement basically sat on their hands and allowed the same people to show up night after night, with their faces covered with black masks and surrounded by open umbrellas, and wreak havoc for months. In general, the sort of thing you do when you really really really don't care to identify people.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe many of the Portland arrestees were just protesters, Brian.

[shawn_dude]

"...the fed were... unwelcome." Because they were in unmarked uniforms, driving unmarked passenger vans, and snatching people off the streets into those vans. Exactly how does one know who a "fed" is versus anyone else in military-style gear if not for the insignias, names, badges, etc?

Also, you have one group largely protesting but some rioting around the idea that the police shouldn't get away with abusing the citizens they're supposed to protect. You have another group that marched on the capitol building, some of them armed, to stop the national election, kill the vice president, and prevent the peaceful transfer of power in an act of sedition.

Are you saying armed insurrectionists should be treated the same as civil rights protesters? Is this 1968 all over again?

[Life of Brian]

Precisely as substantive of a response as I've grown to expect from you, Sarc. Thanks for not disappointing.

[Life of Brian]

stop the national election . . . kill the vice president . . . armed insurrectionists

Sorry, dude -- that was last month's breathless memes, ever-so-quietly walked back after dangling them out and letting gullible people like you take them and run with them.

Try again if you have anything reality-based you'd like to bring to the conversation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Krychek_2, let's say you were a police chief -- a good one who sought to reduce traffic fatalities.

You have two intersections in your community. One has had a grand total of *one* fatal accident in the past four years, while the other has had something like 256 -- where would you allocate your resources (i.e. send your officers)? Think about what a 50% reduction in fatalities at both intersections would mean -- and where it would save more lives....

"What about" is a very legitimate question here -- and with the BLM rioting as well.

[Krychek_2]

Like I was saying about sloppily reasoned comparisons . . .

[Dr. Ed 2]

"s there evidence that Antifa trains militarily for the specific purpose of going to other people’s rallies and committing violence?"

Absolutely. It's more a confederation than a hierarchical entity, but Antifa and BAMN before it absolutely did training for violence and they have some pretty good tactics. I've had to deal with them.

[Sarcastr0]

Streets are not races.

[Sarcastr0]

Why I'm arguing with someone who thinks the Turner Diaries is predictive in any way I don't know.

[Krychek_2]

Because he's a train wreck and you can't help yourself?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The things to understand about the _Turner Diaries_ is that (a) someone actually wrote that and (b) enough people consider it plausible for it to have had the longevity and circulation that it has.

I'm not saying that *I* think it is predictive, only speculating on how those who think that it is will interpret political bias in prosecutions.

[Nige]

But you get mad when people talk about white supremacists being a threat?

[Dr. Ed 2]

" BLM will get a pass from local Soros funded prosecutors, while anyone to the right of that will be branded a “white supremacist” and have the book thrown at them."

Which will only fuel things like the _Turner Diaries_ -- I do fear for the future of the Republic...

[BrotherMovesOn]

Can I sub for Atty Neiporent here?
"No you didn't"
No they haven't"
"That never happened"

[Zarniwoop]

"We all know how these laws will be applied. BLM will get a pass from local Soros funded prosecutors, while anyone to the right of that will be branded a “white supremacist” and have the book thrown at them."

This was a Federal prosecution brought by the Trump DOJ. Predicate acts in March 2017, prosecuted at all times under the leadership of Trump appointees.

Were they "Soros funded" too?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"This was a Federal prosecution brought by the Trump DOJ. Predicate acts in March 2017, prosecuted at all times under the leadership of Trump appointees.

Do you honestly think that Trump had control over the bureaucracy?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Or that Trump's reach, which was arugable over his top level of appointments, would go down to an AAG on the west coast...

That is some impressive denial though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maybe Obama's reach *did* go down to AAGs, and hence the presumption that Trump's did as well....

[Nige]

Never mind the whataboutism, what about the 'local Soros funded prosecutors,'?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Check the campaign contributions for the elected DA's in any major city. You will see a common theme as far as donors go....

[Nige]

Campaign finance reform!

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not really, just enjoy the transparency. If urban folk want to continue to elect Soros butt puppets they can continue to expect the wall to wall lawlessness that cities are now enjoying.

[Nige]

Do they receive their Soros orders directly through implanted chips or does he individually call each of them?

[Dr. Ed 2]

At what point does politically biased prosecution become a 14th Amendment issue?

They traveled to Berkley, California in 2017 "to riot" -- well they weren't the only ones doing that so why are they the only ones being charged?!?!?

Same thing with the Capitol riot -- we've had over 250 "declared" riots in the past few years, yet there is only one that the FBI is investigating, with the head of the FBI telling Congress that *White* rioters -- but not Black ones -- are a threat on the level of the lovely folk in the Middle East conducting mass beheadings and burning people to death in cages.

Right....

The Capitol is still standing, largely undamaged, and the only person actually killed was shot by a still-unnamed USCP officer (or possibly a private security guard). Seriously, it's been two months and we still don't know the officer's name -- unlike all the other shootings....

As to the deceased police officer, it was a heart attack -- his family says so. And the other three deaths were natural causes as well, such things happen whenever you have large numbers of middle-aged people at an event, ask any resort or resort community.

I compare that to about 20 police officers murdered (mostly GSW) over the past few years by the Bitchy Little Marxists and their ilk, not to mention entire neighborhoods burnt flat. How is it OK to ignore that???
---------------------
The other question I have is where is the line between self defense, including the self defense of third parties, and "rioting"?

For example, the Proud Boys *claim* that they will never start a fight, only finish one. My take on that is similar to the attitude of many who carry a concealed (or not concealed) firearm -- they aren't looking to shoot someone, but will do so in defense of themselves or others. And Ann Coulter speaks elegantly of the Proud Boys defending her from violence instigated by the left.

The left has been using violence and credible threats of violence to silence conservatives for over 30 years now --- the late Mike Adams described his 2006 visit to UMass Amherst as follows: https://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2006/11/21/planet-u-mass-n1302080

So where is the line between conspiring to riot and conspiring to prevent rioting and to protect your side from leftist violence, particularly when the state refuses to intervene?

[Zarniwoop]

Gee, which should I take more seriously?

Testimony to Congress from the Trump-appointed head of the FBI?

Or Dr.Ed2 ranting about some guy I've never heard of saying he was cancelled at a liberal university in a deep-blue state 15 years ago? Bolstered by a little hand-waving about Ann C. disparaging liberals?

Maybe it's time for a refresher viewing of "one of these things is not like the other" ...

[Longtobefree]

Mr. Biden, tear down this wall!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am more disturbed by the reports of contaminated food being served to the National Guard: https://nypost.com/2021/03/04/pelosi-asked-to-probe-tainted-food-after-national-guard-troops-fell-ill/

How is putting metal shavings into the food provided to soldiers not an act of terrorism? Forget the "whataboutism" -- isn't food tampering a rather serious Federal offense? And there is Federal jurisdiction here because DC is Federal, etc.

So where is the FBI????

[Rossami]

The FBI is probably wisely ignoring that until there is actual evidence. If you're trying to intentionally poison someone, undercooked beef is about the worst possible way to go about that. Remember that many of us like our beef still looking "raw" in the center. We even pay extra for it.

The metal shavings are more problematic if that accusation holds up. But I seriously doubt that they will. Metal shavings are easy to see and don't do that much harm. If you really wanted to hurt someone, you'd use ground up glass or metal specifically shaped to be harmful. My suspicion is that someone is overreacting to bits of aluminum from whatever recepticals and utensils were used to cook, package and/or serve the food.

(And before anyone overreacts, no I don't want aluminum shavings in my meal even if it's accidental instead of intentional. Yes, that would be justification to replace a contractor. But no, it will not substantiate allegations of food tampering.)

[VinniUSMC]

Undercooked steak, good (better even).
Undercooked ground beef, better than undercooked chicken, but not by much.

I've never heard this particular story before today. I'd say intent matters. Incompetence seems likely.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it is also an issue of attitude. If you care about the troops, you want to make sure that they have good food, dry clothes and appropriate bunking. You check on that sort of stuff -- like the General in Iraq who sent an email to his wife asking her to buy all the sports bras she could find and send them to him as "his female soldiers wanted them." He, or someone in his staff, took the time to find that out....

Assuming this is true, I fault the command structure all the way up to Pelosi.

[ReaderY]

I agree with the dissent and the 4th Circuit here. I think it really stretches the statute to suggest “organizing” a riot applies to mere discussion about hypothetical future riots.

The 9th Circuit uses overbreadth overbroadly. Overbreadth should only applies when it is reasonably and fairly evident to ordinary person that it covers protected speech, not whenever a sufficiently clever and bold person can stretch its conceivable meaning so that it might be thought to possibly cover such speech.

Here the most logical and self-evident meaning of “organize” involves arranging an imminent riot.

[Michael D]

From what part of the Constitution does Congress have the authority to make criminal laws of this nature?

Is it the Commerce Clause? There is no “substantial impact to interstate commerce”

Is it the 14th Amendment? Is this an equal protection issue? I fail to see it with an act prohibiting communications to commit a riot.

I am having a difficult time pinpointing exactly which enumerated power grants Congress any authority here unless the action has taken place in DC or on federal facilities.

[BillyG]

Probably that they traveled interstate. (Just a guess)

[Jimmy the Dane]

You could probably make the case that it was civil rights enforcement which the courts have been really lax in reigning in the federal government. Or it doesn't take much in terms of federal property to form enough of a nexus for the Feds to jump in. Could be only a small part of the overall facts, but that gives them jurisdiction. Or as stated above some form of interstate travel.

The reality is though unless the Supreme Court is going to tell the government that something is not interstate commerce no one is going to do so. Not the executive, not Congress, and not any lower courts.

[Sarcastr0]

Read the OP:

the [Anti-Riot Act criminalizes using interstate commerce or communications] "with intent"...

[ReaderY]

Prohibiting travelling across state lines for a criminal purpose is a very traditional and long-standing use of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Interstate travel is within the literal meaning of the words “interstate commerce.” It was upheld by the courts long before the Commerce Clause began to be expanded in the 1930s.

[sarajennifer]

partly upheld

[Zarniwoop]

That's a trite saying, but what aspect of the prosecution makes it a "bad case"? If you substitute "Antifa" for "Rise Above Movement" ... would you say they should be prosecuted?

I don't have a problem with applying the 9th Circuit's decision equally to any defendant - regardless of whether they identify as left, right, or center.

But if your answer changes with the identity of the defendant, you're arguing based on ideology, not the constitution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not the CID?

[Jimmy the Dane]

The left is getting increasingly angry when you point out the blatant double standard under which they operate. It is telling.

Just read a few screeds by lefties mad that anyone would question the decision to cancel Dr. Suess. They all boil down to "nothing to see here..." and "oh it is a private company..." Both of which are pretty lame because they created the culture in which the company felt compelled to engage in censorship acts and are failing to own up for it morally. They could care less about the private aspect of a business when it comes to the government forcing an artist to perform work for a same sex marriage or something similar. Then the sanctity of the private business disappears, entirely...

[Jimmy the Dane]

No the left is fine with constitutional standards applying differently based upon identity. To them, certain things that are leftie have more inherent "value" and thus ought to be treated differently under a constitutional framework. Affirmative action is a great example. It is "OK" because it applies to politically favored. The definitions of "hate speech" and calls for the constitution to allow the government to regulate it are similar is fashion.

[Nige]

But you haven't pointed out any double standards. Not a single one.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You mere the sheer lack of prosecutions around BLM riots? But the law seems to come down like a ton of bricks anytime it is a "white supremacist" rally? They are all over the place. If you choose not to recognize them when they are right there in front of your face no degree of demonstration is going to convince you otherwise.

[Nige]

They should have arrested the rioters, not BLM protestors, shouldn't they? Maybe then they'd actually have people they could charge and prosecute.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The FBI is reviewing credit card information to identify anyone who traveled to DC around January 6th and interrogating them -- including one person who reportedly went down there for business (it was a Wednesday) and didn't go anywhere near that part of the 3-state-area.

When they are taking this level of presumptive guilt, what's wrong with rounding up all of the BLM protesters and interrogating them, too?

[shawn_dude]

That's Quite a strawman you've constructed there. A Quintessential example of Quarrying the Quirkiest corners of the internet for Quack theories and Questionable logic.

[Nige]

No grounds for it.