Free Speech

City Announces Cancellation of "America First" Rally at Private Venue, Claims Security Threats + "Values"

|

From the City of Anaheim's Twitter feed:

The rally would have featured Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz, according to this City News Service story.

Now a private venue doesn't violate the First Amendment by cancelling a rally based on "public safety concerns." (The cancellation might be a breach of contract, depending on whether or not the contract has a provision for that.) And it isn't generally a First Amendment violation for government officials to simply try to persuade private parties not to participate in distributing certain kinds of speech (see, e.g., Hammerhead Enterprises, Inc. v. Brezenoff (2d Cir. 1983), Penthouse Int'l Ltd. v. Meese (D.C. Cir. 1991), and X-Men Security, Inc v. Pataki (2d Cir. 1999)).

But when the government tries to coerce private entities into suppressing speech, that may well violate the speakers' First Amendment rights (see, e.g., Rattner v. Netburn (2d Cir. 1991)Okwedy v. Molinari (2d Cir. 2003), and Backpage, Inc. v. Dart (7th Cir. 2015)). So the questions are: When a city "share[s] public safety concerns" about a speech with a private venue, and then publicly announces the cancellation of the event with the statement, "As a city we respect free speech but also have a duty to call out speech that does not reflect our city and its values,"

  1. Do you think there was likely any coercive pressure exercised by the city against the venue?
  2. If this had been, say, a Socialist rally that was cancelled with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, with the same public statement, what would your inference be?
  3. Say the City of Anaheim had indeed simply passed along some information about threats against the speakers or the venue, i.e., concrete "public safety concerns" rather than just abstract ones. Indeed, say that it even gave the venue the assurance that it would of course do all it can to protect the rally—contrary as the speech is to "our city and its values"—if the venue continued to host the event. (I have no idea if such assurances were offered.) Do you think this sort of reaction by the city is likely to encourage future threats of violence against future controversial speeches, discourage them, or have no effect?

NEXT: California Court Strikes Down Law That Criminalized Certain Uses of Non-Preferred Pronouns

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. X-men security?? I’m surprised that company isn’t involved in other litigation with Marvel Comics.

    1. Hammerhead is also a Marvel character.

      1. Should the KKK hold a recruitment rally in the middle of the ‘hood in Detroit? They should have that right. However, its success is unlikely. Its toxicity to order and peace is likely given the culture of the residents. Reality says, that Anaheim cancellation prevented a waste of time, money and effort. time. Find another city to the East in Cali, where secession is popular. Don’t bother litigating this decision. It is a favor.

        1. Eugene is making trouble with his questions. Purpose? To generate fees for 3 lawyers. Yes, America is great. It allowed Nazis to parade in a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. That’s great to First Amendment academic specialists. It is shocking and disgusting to ordinary people. The Jewsshould not have beat the asses of the Nazis, but of the ACLU and of its big donors.

          1. Instead of bringing $millions in hospitality money to crazed leftwing area near Los Angeles, they should move the rally to Bakersfield. Look at what living in degenerate Los Angeles has done to Volokh. Instead of his being an anti-Commie, he is barely containing his wokeness, support for big government and for lawyer rent seeking. Those people are gone, and hopeless. They are more provincial and insular than any dweller in the deepest holler of Kentucky.

            1. Goodbye, Daivd. Thanks, Eugene, for the mute button.

              1. Craig. Sorry to hear that. Miss a day, miss a lot. You are in denial, and want nothing to disturb your provincial and insular presentist rent seeking. But, you are mistaken. I am your best friend. Your number will be half. Your pay will be four fold because of the value you will bring, instead of the $5 million you destroy every year alive. Your public esteem will be 10 times higher than today.

                1. Liberty Justice Center sent a letter to Facebook threatening to sue over removal of a post about the lack of necessity of masking children. FB is outrageous. Seize it in civil forfeiture. Arrest try and imprison Zuckerberg as an agent of the Chinese Commie Party.

                  1. Here is where a Volokh analysis would be useful, for a change. The government or an official implores a private party to censor a message. For example, Biden says, Facebook should delete anti-vaccine posts. Or, this Democrat Anaheim official says, not our values, no rally at the private location.

                    1) Is the private platform then a quasi-governmental organization for that subject matter?

                    2) Is a quasi-governmental organization subject to the First Amendment?

                    3) Can both the platform and the government be sued for their constitutional torts, with exemplary damages? To deter.

                2. ” I am your best friend.”

                  You are highly delusional. On a number of topics.

              2. This first thread is a moderately hilarious stack of grey boxes for me.

        2. You finally lost me.

          1. The issue is settled. The outcome is to the real benefit of the rally. It will do better taking its hospitality expenses where it is welcome, to Bakersfield.

            Eugene, on the other hand, is ginning up trivial controversies. He is nitpicking the cliched, and stale woke statement of a public official, about the calling out values counter to those of the city. I agree, he cannot say that under color of law. It is emotional and stupid. Trump induces a lot of emotion. Just ignore it. Don’t be starting a whole legal analysis of an emotional guy.

    2. “X-men security?? I’m surprised that company isn’t involved in other litigation with Marvel Comics.”

      What? Since when has Disney EVER overreacted to other people using their trademarks without permission?

      Disney was more or less trying to kill off the X-Men for years because another company owned the rights to make X-Men movies. Eventually they just piled up money on the table and bought them back.

      1. Lay three dinner plates on your table that look even vaguely like Mickey Mouse ears and before the soup course is even served Disney Lawyers will be knocking at your door with a cease & desist order from one of their pet judges.

        1. Get your sarcasm detector tuned. Yours is on the fritz.

  2. Censorship by coercion of the venue, probably. Just like censorship on social media by threats of political harassment.

    1. Bad enough when a private venue does it.

      When a government does it, it’s a Constitutional Violation

      1. But when the government tries to coerce private entities into suppressing speech, that may well violate the speakers’ First Amendment rights

        “Better censor harrassment and dangerous speech or we will wipe section 230 and break you up, leading to hundreds of billions in stock losses. Oh, you are doing this now? Thank you! Hey, did you notice our political opponents are saying harrassing and dangerous things…there you go. HURRY THIS IS THE ELECTION PERIOD! Ah, good. That’s the right answer. Thank you.”

        1. Why would a convention center care if you did something to Section 230?

    2. Am I the only one who noticed that it was the CITY that was announcing that the event had been canceled?

      1. Yes, Ed, as usual you are quite special.

  3. Line up and jump to conclusions!

  4. Well of course it was viewpoint driven censorship. When is the last time a left wing event got cancelled because of so called safety concerns?

    The left sanctions this kind of violence all the time. That is why antifa is unchecked in most major cities.

      1. Ooh. Unnamed “militias” were going to be at a Trump campaign rally, so the Democrats had to cancel a Biden rally? Makes perfect sense.

        1. “Makes perfect sense.”

          First mistake: Expecting sense from a Trump crowd.

          1. No, the first mistake was to think the city would support free speech like in America.

            1. You liberals. Always looking for government support!

    1. “That is why antifa is unchecked in most major cities.”

      Unchecked by lots of arrests I guess.

      https://www.koin.com/news/protests/portland-protest-arrests-by-the-numbers-through-feb-2021/

      1. Arrests have no effect when you get bailed out for free by the DNC and have a crooked Soros-paid DA who drops all charges, while pushing the lie that all terrorist threats are from the right.

        1. Well, you have to appreciate the *effort* to use facts, even if they can’t resist misrepresenting their import.

          So, yes, “unchecked by lots of arrests”. Also note that these were arrests for actual actions in the actual fucking world, not “potential speech that we disapprove of”.

          So ya kind of whiffed on two pitches there, Queenie.

          1. “note that these were arrests for actual actions in the actual fucking world, not ‘potential speech that we disapprove of’.”

            Look at those goalposts move!

            The claim was that antifa is “unchecked in major cities”, which is true if you ignore the fact that law enforcement agencies arrest them when they can catch ’em doing illegal things.

            1. After which woke DAs release them.

              1. Saves the cost of a trial if the jury wouldn’t have convicted, anyway.

        2. Setting aside all the made up facts, I love how authoritarians show their true colors ranting about people being “bailed out.” Pretrial detention is not supposed to be punishment.

          1. Yeah denying bail is only for right wing political activists, not the left wing guys….

            1. denying bail is for people who refuse to refrain from crimes while awaiting trial, or people who seem likely to flee the trial.

              1. None of which applies the political prisoners from the January 6th protest.

                1. I never find persuasive the right-wing whining about insurrectionists being held to account for their disgusting conduct.

                  Carry on with the whimpering.

                  1. I was wondering when I’d run across you so I can mute your sorry ass.

                    1. Carry on your whimpering, whether or not the Rev cares what you think of his opinion(s).

                2. Well, since that’s a null set, yes. But if you mean the insurrectionists from the January 6th coup attempt, “refuse to refrain from crimes while awaiting trial” does.

                  1. Several points…

                    1. “Refusing the refrain from crimes” is not the criteria for denying bail. The actual criteria is “danger to the community”
                    2. Regardless, they have agreed to “not commit crimes” and are still being denied bail.
                    3. I challenge you to find cases of the following.
                    A. an FBI manhunt, searching nation wide to…
                    B. Where the prisoner is tranferred under federal custody hundreds of miles from their home
                    C. And are then held, without bail, for months. Often under solitary confinement.
                    D. For actual charges that are “disorderly conduct” and such.

                    These individuals are political prisoners. They largely have no violent past. The crimes most are being charged with are non-violent. And yet, they are being treated like mass murderers.

                    The only reason this level of absurd prosecution is going on is because of politics. The “process” is the punishment in this case. A fast trial should be easy, but being able to throw them in jail for months, without even needing a trial, is part of the strategy.

                    1. Political prisoners – exactly. It’s ghastly.

                    2. You would think that the FBI and DOJ would learn from their mistakes of the past — similar over-enthusiastic prosecutions (of clearly guilty) people in the past led to those perps getting way with their crimes.

                      I don’t know how this will come out in the end, but history shows that overreach such as this inevitably backfires in dimensions that those who perpetrate it never expected…

                  2. “1. ‘Refusing the refrain from crimes’ is not the criteria for denying bail. The actual criteria is ‘danger to the community'”

                    You lose this point. Committing further crimes is a “danger to the community.”

                    “3. I challenge you to find cases of the following.
                    A. an FBI manhunt, searching nation wide to…
                    B. Where the prisoner is tranferred under federal custody hundreds of miles from their home
                    C. And are then held, without bail, for months. Often under solitary confinement.
                    D. For actual charges that are “disorderly conduct” and such.”

                    Didn’t the Bush administration play “musical jails to avoid habeus petition” with an alleged terrorist who hadn’t actually committed any terrorism?

                3. “None of which applies the political prisoners from the January 6th protest.”

                  Nor to leprechauns, elves, or unicorns. All of those mythical creatures are as relevent as the “political prisoners”.

                  1. Hint: We keep our actual political prisoners in Cuba.

          2. One may beat the rap but you will not beat the ride.

            1. At present.

              American society has always reached an equilibrium before and I would not see some sort of lucrative compensation for the ride.

              1. Was that your bunch that got all lit up on the side of the Interstate on your way to Maine? So many red and blue lights…

          3. Hi, David. The sole mature and effective of the criminal law is incapacitation. Any reform that reduces cage time will result in hideous jumps in the murder rates of black young males. Did you know that incapacitation is the sole real benefit of the criminal law, and the rest is lawyer rent seeking bullshit?

          4. Tell it to the Jan 6 rioters.

            1. no, no, the story is that they were tourists. There to take pictures of the Speaker of the House’s offices. And maybe try rapelling down out of the Senate galleries. Definitely NOT there to try to overthrow the lawful transition of power from the guy who never won a majority of voters’ votes to a guy who did.

              1. And in what universe would the people who showed up at the Capitol on January 6 been able to “overthrow the lawful transition of power”? Even assuming that that was their intention, and even assuming that they were able to seize and hold the Capitol, all that would have meant is that Congress would have met somewhere else (if there isn’t a room large enough in the House or Senate Office Buildings, the Andrew Mellon Departmental Auditorium is just down the street) and completed the vote count.

                1. ” in what universe would the people who showed up at the Capitol on January 6 been able to “overthrow the lawful transition of power”?”

                  If they’d been able to capture the EC votes, then the HoR wouldn’t have been able to accept them, preventing the lawful transition. But they were so busy vandalizing the Capitol and looting Pelosi’s office, they forgot to grab the EC votes. I guess if you have an incompetent leader, you get incompetent followers.

      2. You know the difference between an arrest and ultimately being held criminally liable, right?

        1. Yeah, you can sometimes buy your way out of being held criminally liable.

    2. Antifa is unchecked in most major cities.

      Stop making things up.

      Either you’ve never been to a major city, or – more likely – you just don’t care about making things up to support your already wrong points.

      Suffice to say Antifa isn’t a part of daily life.

      1. Here’s a video of Antifa beating up and driving away a videographer at a protest event in Los Angeles.

        “Get the camera, get the camera!”

        . Note the antifa flag they fly during the assaults.

        https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1411456024725245952

        1. Andy Ngo is a RW troll and a liar.

          If he’s the best you can do you’ve got nothing.

          1. Yeah, yeah, got it: You don’t like him, so it’s OK to beat him half to death.

          2. Why is he a “liar”?

            And “trolling” isn’t done in person…because, well, the risk of physical violence.

            1. “Why is he a “liar”? ”

              Because he lies.

          3. Yeah, being hospitalized and run out of town with death threats is definitely trolling. If that’s the best you can do you’ve got nothing.

            1. Ngo and Patriot Prayer have an “understanding” that the group offers him protection when he covers rallies in exchange for favorable coverage. While this has not been confirmed, and Ngo strongly denies these allegations, an audio conversation between members of the Proud Boys, released by Willamette Week seemed to confirm that such discussions between Ngo and the Proud Boys had occurred, as one man is recorded saying that Ngo was attacked on June 29th because he refused an offer of protection. “Andy Ngo was fucking told that if he wanted protection from the PBs [Proud Boys], he went in with us and he went out with us,” the man says.

              https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/

          4. You’re a leftist troll and a blatant liar. If that’s the best accusation you have, you’re far lamer than usual.

            1. Speaking of lame, there was this ^^^ argument.

              Hopefully, “Nuh-uh! YOU are! will be recognized as genius repartee when you get back to nursery school.

      2. Seattle CHOP was a few square blocks held for a few weeks, if you didn’t choose go nearby it was not part of daily life. Makes it OK?

        1. If you lived or worked there, how did that choice work out?

          1. Like you, I was 3000 miles away. Unlike you, this meant that it didn’t affect me.

            1. So how far were you from the Capitol on January 6th?

              1. A couple of hours down the Interstate. But I have an interest when someone tries to overthrow my government, wherever I happen to be.

          2. Awful if you lived/worked there and awful if you did not. I realize my comment was poorly phrased, my intent was to mock Sarcastro but I obviously failed. I should have said, one need not be personally assaulted to be affected by crime even if crime is not a part of daily life. Antifa expropriated a section of Seattle, only those nearby saw their day to day activities affected but it’s ridiculous to say that doesn’t make them part of our daily life.

            Note to Sarcastro – please don’t bother quibbling whether CHOP was occupied by Antifa. That would just embarrass both of us.

            1. Antifa wasn’t who did CHOP, chief.

              But also, that’s not even relevant to the present tense of the question currently at issue: Antifa is unchecked in most major cities.

              1. No, no, go with it. Antifa was totally responsible for CHOP, and they’re unchecked in the cities. Seattle is a city, and that’s why CHOP still hasn’t been reabsorbed back into Seattle.

              2. Take off your ideological blinders, you’re smarter than this. The black-clad mask wearing “protesters” trying to burn down police precincts and federal buildings were absolutely essential to the formation of CHOP. That other folks moved in for some fun negates that fact not in the slightest.

                “Most major cities” was a bit of hyperbole, no doubt. Minimizing violent anarchists being allowed free reign in *many* major cities is no better.

                1. ” Minimizing violent anarchists being allowed free reign in *many* major cities is no better.”

                  Coming back to reality, though, since violent anarchists are not being allowed free reign in any major cities, there’s not a problem that needs fixing.

      3. Sarcastro had just become a sad apologist for the the left and their violence. His comments no longer have substances and are just pure gaslighting now.

        1. I appreciate his comments, only because he is the epitome of someone who uses rationalization techniques to their best effect. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

        2. Pointing out that you’re posting nonsense about Antifa running unchecked in most cities isn’t being an apologist, it’s being a fan of facts not fiction.

          1. “Pointing out that you’re posting nonsense about Antifa running unchecked in most cities isn’t being an apologist, it’s being a fan of facts not fiction.”

            Being a “fan of facts not fiction” makes you an enemy to all Conservatives. If you’re not spouting their story-of-the-day, they gots no use for ya.

    3. antifa is unchecked in most major cities.

      Yeah. Every time I go out I see antifa everywhere.

      You’re deranged. Go see if someone can help you get those voices out of your head.

      1. Another Antifa assault on a journalist.

        Deranged details here:

        https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1400266501601513475

        1. And yet I continue to be able to go outside and do whatever I need done in my life without being assaulted by Antifa.

          Something you’d do well to understand, is that something happening somewhere does not mean it is happening everywhere all the time.

          Let me guess – you’re a Trump supporter?

          1. And yet I continue to go outside and do whatever I want even after Jan 6th. Maybe putting 2,500 soldiers around the Capitol for 3 months was a cynical political ploy. Let me guess – you’re a Trump hater?

            1. So, your thesis is that you can go outside and do whatever you want because troops were deployed around Washington?

        2. Andy Ngo again.

          1. George Floyd again.

            1. He’s still dead.

      2. So how do you feel about all those White Supremicists the Democrat/Media Complex assures us is everywhere?

        1. They may not be everywhere, but they aren’t awfully interested in hiding.

  5. Apparently this isn’t the first time the rally has been cancelled.

    The first time was he Pacific Hills Banquet & Event Center in Laguna Hills

    The second time was the Riverside Convention Center. There’s a lot of government free speech issues there too. The city owns the Riverside Convention Center, but it’s managed by a private company (Raincross Hospitality Corp.) who cancelled the contract. After which the Riverside mayor said ““I recognize this was a divisive issue in our community, and I am glad it has been resolved,” Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson said. “I commend Raincross Hospitality Corp. for this decision.””

    If the mayor calls up the management company and says “This is a divisive issue…maybe it’s better if the rally is cancelled?”….and the city owns the center and gives the management company the contract….

    1. Remember when this was a free country?

      1. Are you somehow not free to bitch and whine about imagined slights like this one?

  6. Having dealt with a few city officials over the years, I suggest the likelihood is high that if the venue went ahead with the event, the venue would receive a few unfriendly visits by the health department and code enforcement officials in the subsequent months.

    1. The inspections and code violations would not be 6 money. They would be within the next 48 hours / any time before the event. ADA violations. Wrong color yellow on bollards in the parking lot. Dumpster service will be skipped. Noise complaints. Illegal parking by guests at some other functions.

    2. Speculative oppression doesn’t count.

      1. Isn’t that chilling?

        Wait. Do I mean the speculation, or you lack of concern for it?

        1. Except when that speculation is called “systemic racism” right? Then we can heap on as much unfounded conjecture and made up stories are we want….?

          1. Your imaginary grievances are of no consequence to others.

            1. Haha…nice strawman. Isn’t it those who manufacture endless so-called “grievances” who are the ones with, well, grievances?

              1. ” Isn’t it those who manufacture endless so-called ‘grievances’ who are the ones with, well, grievances?”

                Yes, which is WHY your imagined grievances are of no consequence for others.

        2. “Isn’t that chilling?
          Wait. Do I mean the speculation, or you lack of concern for it?”

          First, provide a reason why anyone should be concerned for you speculation, then, if it’s a good reason, maybe some concern would follow.

          1. Nothing yet? Well, I’ll give you a couple more days to come up with something.

      2. In case you didn’t read the article, cancelation of this event was not speculative.

        1. Try and follow the thread – Biff is speculating himself a whole new world here.

  7. In case #2, of course, the city would have let the event go ahead, just as they always do when BLM/Antifa wants to commit terrorism.

    Which makes me wonder just how many times a city has to discriminate this way before the courts will recognize that they are and stop them. I’m sure it varies according to which side appointed the judge.

    1. the city would have let the event go ahead, just as they always do when BLM/Antifa wants to commit terrorism

      Yeah, cities love terrorism.

      Or maybe you don’t know what terrorism is?

      1. Does this count as terrorism? Are you an Antifa sympathizer now?

        Author Andy Ngo, who exposed Antifa, says he was beaten by ‘masked mob’

        https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/author-andy-ngo-says-he-was-beaten-by-mob-in-portland

        If this mob succeeds in their revolution, do you realize that useful idiots like you will be the first persons thrown up against the firing squad wall?

        1. Repetitious, Kevin. Very repetitious.

          1. True, Kevin. Very true.

          2. So you’re cool with Antifa beating up journalists?

            1. I’m somewhat less concerned if they stick to the fascist ones.

      2. Terrorism is using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve political ends.

        That fit’s Antifa to a “T”

        For heavens sake, they took over a section of a city and declared an independent country, and have caused billions in damages and a dozen or so deaths. Is that terrorism enough for you.

        Wait, wait….I know what you’re reply is going to be…Antifa is more of an idea that an actual organization.

        1. “Terrorism is using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve political ends.
          That fit’s Antifa to a ‘T'”

          You skipped over a step. Terrorism is using violence, or the threat of violence, against innocent people. that “innocent people” part is why the Allies weren’t committing terrorism in 1945.

          1. Please review the innocent people attacked by Antifa in Seattle, New York, Washington, and Seattle; repeatedly during the past year. Then compare to the innocent people killed on January 6th.

            1. How do I review people you imagine?

            2. They’re literally called anti-fascist. Therefore they can’t be fascist, and anyone they attack is, by definition, a fascist.

              Who are you going to believe, the left or your lying eyes?

              1. “Who are you going to believe, the left or your lying eyes?”

                Well, not you, that’s for sure.

  8. 1) “Likely” defined as “high probability of occurrence”. Too many unknowns here. This is a tweet from a spokesperson, who may have had no contact with the venue. What was actually said between the city and the venue? Emails? Texts? All pertinent questions for discovery in the event of a lawsuit. I’ve seen too many statements from spokespeople get retracted later to rule this out.

    2) Inferences are the same regardless of viewpoint. Fact finding matters, not conjectures.

    3) Yea this one is a doozy. That last sentence in the tweet was either (i) an unwitting admission of viewpoint discrimination or (ii) a deliberate admission of viewpoint discrim that was designed to precipitate a lawsuit, or (iii) an opinion held solely by the spokesperson that does not reflect the opinions of the city.

    Time will tell. It does seem likely that the truth will out sooner or later!

    LL

    1. Hopefully via massive lawsuit.

      Also note the use of “resolved” as a synonym for “we got our way”. Nice.

    2. Don’t expect Trumpist fools to accept the truth if it doesn’t match their preconceived notions.

      1. Looking forward to your acceptance of the truth about Russia collusion.

        1. The truth being that Trump would have been more than happy to collude, if the Russians would have let him. But they didn’t want anything to do with him.
          Accepted.

          1. You don’t seem to have accepted the truth about Russian collusion…

  9. even if you wanted to give anaheim the benefit of the doubt the announcement really sounds like viewpoint driven censorship. Also hecklers don’t get a blank check to shutdown the 1st amendment.

    1. “Also hecklers don’t get a blank check to shutdown the 1st amendment.”

      Read any reports about mostly peaceful protests in the last year?

      1. You mean since January?

        1. Boys boys! Your sides both suck on this issue, picking and choosing.

          1. Not as much as your side, though. They are easily the suckiest, and by a good margin.

            1. Gosh, let’s count the number of riots since Jan 6th, shall we? One side is pretty easy: Zero.

              1. The armed troops really helped with that, I guess.

    2. “even if you wanted to give anaheim the benefit of the doubt the announcement really sounds like viewpoint driven censorship.”

      Which private parties remain free to indulge in. Did you read the article?

      1. Clearly in Anaheim, Fantasy land extends far beyond the boundaries of the theme park.

        The most troubling part of the city’s announcement was that they were “calling out” speech that does not reflect their values.
        That does sound very close to viewpoint based discrimination whether a group were Right or Left.

        1. Calling out was chosen because it’s speech, not action. Government speech can take a viewpoint.

          1. I don’t see that reasoning. The city can also “call out” actions.
            I’m afraid that “calling out” has a particular stench reminiscent of suppressing or more precisely “calling for suppressing.”

            1. Nobody but you is responsible for the associations you make. or reminisce.

          2. Governments, which to say the elected officials, elected by The People, definitely have partisan speech as part of their authorizations.

            But when that’s quoted in conjunction with arm twisting of private entities, expressing your pleasure at their “free decisions by free, private entities”, it becomes evidence of First Amendment supression.

            1. “But when that’s quoted in conjunction with arm twisting of private entities, expressing your pleasure at their “free decisions by free, private entities”, it becomes evidence of First Amendment supression.”

              Whether or not there was any evidence of actual arm-twisting…

        2. “That does sound very close to viewpoint based discrimination whether a group were Right or Left.”

          Pointing out that someone’s speech does not reflect your values is not censorship. It is, in fact, the primary remedy for censorship.

          1. On the other hand, shutting down a venue based on the viewpoint of the gathering is the very definition of viewpoint discrimination.

            1. You got me there. Of course, I was restricted to actual things that happened, you you’re free to invent whatever events suit your fancy.

      2. Not when the city seems so proud that they let slip the implication that they pressured the venue. Or would you like it if Trump II puts pressure on places to not serve leftists?

        1. Short memory syndrome?
          Trump used literal, actual arm-twisting to keep leftists from protesting at his rallies.

          1. And you approved? If not then, why now?

            1. I disapprove of actual arm-twisting. When you got some actual arm-twisting, feel free to call it out.

              1. So, nothing? Nothing is what you got?

                And yet you object to having this pointed out, for some reason.

    3. I think it depends. This all hinges on whether or not the city pressured the venue to cancel in relation to the content. The city is well within its rights to recommend cancellation to avert violence, provided that they act in a similar manner if similar threats are made against speakers with different viewpoints.

      We will see what the city says. “Agency H disavows statement by Spokesperson K” has become such a common occurrence that I’m content to wait for now.

      1. I suppose it also depends on the public health concern itself. If it is a reasonable one (say, a large group of people who don’t want to abide by the venue’s mask policy), then the city in the clear as long as they do this in a content neutral way.

  10. “What was actually said between the city and the venue?”

    Nice little private venue you got here. Be a shame if it got safety inspected and health department inspected every week, and cops took an hour to respond to any calls, wouldn’t it?

    1. That’s pretty much exactly what I took away from the statement. It certainly looks like the Anaheim city council made the venue an offer they couldn’t refuse.

      1. Who, exactly, is responsible for what you “took away” from a statement? Apparently, it is not you.

        1. How _dare_ someone make a reasonable inference from an actual statement of government intent to prevent certain icky gatherings.

          1. An inference that just happens to reinforce the feelings one already has is not “reasonable”.

        2. Clearly you have never learned how to read Pravda.

          1. Nope. Their alphabet is all funny.

  11. More of the right-wing persecution complex. Sorry to see EV jumping on board that train, but I guess it was inevitable.

    Not getting to listen to MTG and Gaetz. What a fucking tragedy.

    1. Bernard,
      I hope you saw my last post yesterday re: the rant.

        1. I apologized to you for occasioning your post to write a rant related to IPLawyer.
          My comments were not directed at you although you might have read them that way.

    2. “More of the right-wing persecution complex. Sorry to see EV jumping on board that train, but I guess it was inevitable.

      Not getting to listen to MTG and Gaetz. What a fucking tragedy.”

      Reps. Greene and Gaetz should be heard. People should have the opportunity to be heard and to hear. And every time those two speak it drives another nail into the conservatives’ self-made coffin, with young Americans doing much of the hammering.

      This blog, which imposes viewpoint-driven censorship (and is entitled to), is a poor venue for complaints such as this one, however. Mostly, this appears to be just the daily lathering of the rubes.

      1. “Reps. Greene and Gaetz should be heard.”

        Not by people who don’t want to hear it. The right to speak freely does not imply any ability to compel people to listen.

        This is why we have late-night comedy shows with monologues, so that the nuts can be heard and mocked appropriately.

        1. Who was forcing people who didn’t want to hear Greene and Gaetz to do so? You don’t want to hear them, you don’t go to their rally.

          1. “You don’t want to hear them, you don’t go to their rally.”

            Did you imagine you saw me at their rally?

            1. Then why are you bitching and moaning about people being compelled to hear Greene and Gaetz?

              1. Let’s review:

                Bitches: 0
                Moans: 0

                Seamus “Stop bitching and moaning!”

    3. “Not getting to listen to MTG and Gaetz. What a fucking tragedy.”

      For a second, look at what this is. Outlawing political rallies. In the United States.

      You don’t have to agree with their politics to note that banning particular political rallies is a very big problem.

      1. I’m not urging that they be banned, just saying that I think their message is worthless at best, probably destructive, and certainly dishonest.

        I agree with you that they should be allowed to speak. I hope, but don’t expect, that you agree that they are scum.

        As to whether Anaheim cancelled the rally out of legitimate security concerns or political motives, let’s wait and see, shall we?

        1. If this mob succeeds in their revolution, do you realize that useful idiots like you will be the first persons thrown up against the firing squad wall?

          1. Stop fantasizing about violence. You’ll end up like Special Ed.

            1. It’s a warning, not a fantasy.

              It’s your side that is currently acting out fantasies of violence!

              1. The nonpartisans are acting out fantasies of violence?

                You’re deluding yourself.

        2. “As to whether Anaheim cancelled the rally out of legitimate security concerns or political motives, let’s wait and see, shall we?”

          Except you need to look at the previous history. This was “suddenly cancelled”. The Rally was planned at Riverside before. And was cancelled…which the Riverside mayor celebrated.

          This is the use of government “influence” to cancel undesired political rallies. It never ends well.

          1. “This is the use of government ‘influence’ to cancel undesired political rallies. It never ends well.”

            This is conspiratorial paranoia. You are right that it rarely turns out well.

            1. Because governments NEVER EVER use their influence to crush undesired political parties…. That’s just a conspiracy.

              1. That’s exactly what a conspiracy theorist would say. Spooky.

  12. “Do you think there was likely any coercive pressure exercised by the city against the venue?”

    One choice would be to ask someone who would know the answer. Another choice is to encourage conspiracy theories on the subject, without bothering to gather facts.

    I see which direction we’ve decided to lean.

  13. I am curious to see what the city will say were the public health concerns.

    1. LA county went back to requiring masks for people at indoor events. Perhaps they had a reason to believe that people who attended this event were likely to decline to do so. Just because the nutjobs have decided that taking vaccines is political, now.

      1. It does seem probable this has something to do with masks. Perhaps also some concerns about crowds in protests/counterprotests?? We’ll see what they say.

        1. If they city meant public health, it should have said that rather than hiding behind “security concerns”—well known by Right and Left to be the flimsiest of excuses.

          1. Did they not invoke the proper magical words for you?

            1. Words, right? What a waste expecting a statement and it’s meaning to be congruent (hint: “security” and “prophylaxis” are two quite different things).

              1. Crazy people believe in irrational things. There’s no point in pointing out reality to such people.

      2. “Just because the nutjobs have decided that taking vaccines is political, now.”
        James,
        Everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob. Cities can issue any decree about covid even when they offer no scientific justification.
        Cities have grown used to the idea that their citizens should be sheep.

        Case in point:
        Why in Berkeley and in Alameda County must vaccinated people have to wear masks indoors. Why don’t authorities feel that they should explain.
        Oh, maybe it is because Alameda country did not update infections on its own website since June 1 and since infections have risen to 150 per day for the past two weeks.

        1. Tennessee has stopped all vaccine outreach, not just COVID. So polio, MSR vaccine, etc.

          This is not normal stuff happening.

          1. You know, I can recall when when conservatives cited anti-vaccination sentiments, inaccurately*, as evidence the left was anti-scientific.

            *At the time surveys showed that opposition to vaccines was independent of political views. There were imbeciles on the right and left.

            1. The #1 vaccine hesistant county in Georgia is Clayton County which voted overwhelmingly for Biden.

              But keep living in your bubble…

              1. Kevin,
                Where did you read anything about vaccine hesitancy in my post.
                My complaint is about public policy that issues decrees with explanation when the explanation would only reveal that they had be hiding the new spiking for the past 6 weeks.

                1. Don, my response was to bernard, not to you.

              2. “The #1 vaccine hesistant county in Georgia is Clayton Count”

                The #1 vaccine-hesitant county in Georgia is all of Georgia.

            2. From CNN in May: Why politicians won’t reach the vaccine hesitant.

              “The most recent Kaiser poll helps illustrate that the vaccine hesitant group doesn’t really lean Republican. Just 20% of the group called themselves Republican with an additional 19% being independents who leaned Republican. The clear majority (61%) were not Republicans (41% said they were Democrats or Democratic leaning independents and 20% were either pure independents or undesignated).”

              https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/09/politics/vaccine-hesitant-analysis/index.html

              Perhaps your bubble is so small that it even excludes CNN ???

          2. Blatant lies, as usual.

            Tennessee moved a single program from one department to another. Oh! It has new management, too. A specific program that talked to school kids about getting vaccines will now be administered by the Department of Education rather than the Department of Health, because it takes place in schools. The Dept of Health continues to administer vaccine outreach programs elsewhere. The shock! The horror!

            1. Sarcastro got caught making up stuff again.

              I hope he doesn’t do this in his law practice.

              1. Toranth isn’t telling the truth, himself.

                Tennessee legislators were upset that the Tennessee Department of Health took it upon itself to encourage adolescents to get vaccinated for COVID, including by directly sending them reminders to get their second shots. This was a natural outgrowth of the kind of public campaigns the DoH had long engaged in, in order to get kids vaccinated from various other diseases.

                Legislators were upset that the DoH’s actions effectively circumvented parental control, and threatened to dissolve the DoH over the issue. Going forward, the DoH will no longer engage in this kind of outreach activity, and will not be permitted to use educational facilities in order to administer vaccines.

                The DoE is still out there to coordinate with parents on back-to-school vaccinations, but to say that the DoH program was simply shuffled into another agency (as Toranth does) is false. The DoH outreach to teens on COVID has ended.

                1. So you just confirmed what Toranth said, thanks.

                  1. The TN legislature is anti-vax, yes.

                    Everybody is saying this.

                2. In other words, as I said: Sarcastro was lying again.

                  The Department of Education will handle in-school student outreach for vaccine programs, for all diseases including COVID-19. This is what Sarcastro was falsely claiming Tennessee had stopped entirely.

                  The Department of Health will continue it’s normal out-of-school vaccine outreach programs for all diseases.

                  As for the Tennessee lawmakers that were upset, one of the major reasons they were annoyed was that the Dept of Health had create a new program without approval that was pushing vaccines on students who were not old enough for the approved vaccines. The new program was pushing students to get shots (and arranging to give them) without parental notice or permissions – including those students underage.

                  Most of the media coverage – which tricks low-information individuals – is coming from uncritical repetition of the former head of the program, who was fired explicitly for running this program without approval (“unwillingness to consult with superiors and other stakeholders” on vaccination programs).
                  This is no different than the absurd Rebekah Jones farce, where someone was fired for cause BUT because it presents an opportunity to attack a Republican, the fired person’s version of the story is reported as fact, even when it is trivial to verify it isn’t.

          3. What does that have to do with my post?
            I said nothing about vaccine hesitancy.

        2. “Everyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob.”

          Incorrect. Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Only the nutjobs are nutjobs.

    2. The city’s statement doesn’t mention public health concerns; it says there were public safety concerns. But yes, it would be interesting to know what they were.

      1. Yes thanks that is right. “Public safety” could encompass both covid concerns and potential violence. Very curious to see how this plays out.

      2. You could try calling city hall, and asking them about it.
        Or, what the hell, just assume whichever motive gives you the longest-lasting erection.

        1. Or they could just be transparent about it and say instead of hiding behind a priapism of twaddle. Are you a council member of Ana-crime by any chance? You certainly sound like one.

          1. I was in Anaheim as recently as 1991.
            I don’t entertain myself by reading things into statements that aren’t there. You do. That’s why you’re all in a lather. You’re mad at your own imagination.

            1. LOL, says the guy reading things into my statements that aren’t there. It’s entirely possible there were legit safety concerns and I’m just asking for a little transparency. There’s nothing wrong or lathery about that.

              The city of Anaheim felt the need to virtue signal in its statement instead of making the safety concerns known so it’s more likely that they were the ones in a lather over the prospects of the rally.

              1. “LOL, says the guy reading things into my statements that aren’t there.”

                The fact that you are that guy is why I’m not paying your opinion much heed.

                ” It’s entirely possible there were legit safety concerns”

                It’s entirely possible that the coronavirus still exists, despite the Repubs’ strong efforts to wish it away. Try to remember, the virus LIKES large gatherings of unvaccinated twits. People who want to defeat the virus favor NOT having large gatherings of unvaccinated people, whether or not they happen to be twits. I’m in that second group. Why aren’t you?

  14. This post was very helpful in understanding what the criteria are for evaluating the constitutionality of the recent statements from the Biden administration’s claims on Facebook and COVID vaccine misinformation.

  15. I don’t believe coercion should be an issue from a jurisprudential point. Instead, under a strict scrutiny analysis the owner of the venue should be compelled to explain why it acted in lockstep with a government body. Absent compelling commercial reasons for it’s decision, it has acted in a quasi governmental role and as such is subject to the proscriptions of the 1st amendment. The same rule should apply if it were AOC and her rabble. The structural injunction is for the most part as dead as the catapult, however I believe that an argument could be made for its renewed application in matters of speech. It would be humorous to compel integration of speech and to bus conservatives into liberal strongholds in order to better integrate the marketplace of ideas.

    1. ” Instead, under a strict scrutiny analysis the owner of the venue should be compelled to explain why it acted in lockstep with a government body.”
      ” It would be humorous to compel integration of speech and to bus conservatives into liberal strongholds in order to better integrate the marketplace of ideas.”

      Interesting that your default solution to things is to compel somebody to do something, presumably with some kind of government power.

  16. The real question in my mind is what were the public safety concerns, where did they come from, how credible were they, and how did the city learn about them.

    I suspect all of these questions would be asked in discovery and truth be told if the concerns were credible should have been shared with America First.

    As an aside I suspect there will be a suit if only for the discovery and the PR both sides seem to want.

    1. ” if the concerns were credible should have been shared with America First.”

      Assuming that they weren’t the source of the concerns, maybe.

    2. The public safety concerns are coming from inside the house.

      1. Meh. the real problem is that what sets off the “real Americans ™” is when they don’t get what they want, canceling their event is the real threat to public order.

  17. I suppose if I were Anaheim, I’d try to claim that this municipal spokesperson was mistakenly trying to take credit for the decision of a private venue, which would have reached the same decision without government pressure. “No harm, no foul, Your Honor, they would have done it anyway. Our over-enthusiastic and misguided spokesperson was trying to get votes from our woke constituents by stealing credit for a private decision unrelated to us. We’re (wo)men of the world, Your Honor, we understand these things, it’s just politics.”

  18. If such a paragon of libertarianism as Chancellor Angela Merkel has serious misgivings of what I call “farming out censorship to private institutions”, you should know that you are in trouble. There is nothing wrong with political opponents visiting the Taylor Greene -Gaetz rally and leafletting it but a city government must not have any part here. At times, combatting almost criminal nut jobs is costing immense efforts but as Communist icon Rosa Luxemburg put it: “Freedom is always, and exclusively, the freedom forbthe one who thinks differently.” (https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/25616.Rosa_Luxemburg )

  19. If such a paragon of libertarianism as Chancellor Angela Merkel has serious misgivings about what I call “farming out censorship to private institutions”, you should know that you are in trouble. There is nothing wrong with political opponents visiting the Taylor Greene -Gaetz rally and leafletting it but a city government must not have any part here. At times, combatting almost criminal nut jobs is costing immense efforts but as Communist icon Rosa Luxemburg put it: “Freedom is always, and exclusively, the freedom for the one who thinks differently.” (https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/25616.Rosa_Luxemburg )

  20. 1. Yes
    2. The same
    3. Yes

    1. At my brother’s wedding in 1962 my job as usher was to inquire of arriving guests “Friend or relative of the bride or groom?” (In those days the bride’s people were to be seated to one side of the venue and the groom’s, the other) to which the appropriate answer was not “yes”. So as to #3, thanks for reviving a pleasant memory.

      1. And how many of those guests, imagining they were showing off their rapier-like wit, answered “Yes” anyway?

        1. What you’re actually measuring there is the likelihood that there was an open bar at the event.

  21. It is a fundamental tenet of a liberal mind to allow all voices to speak. That did not occur here, plain and simple. No American city is authorized to be guardian of “our values”. Much, much less does it have a “duty” to do so. The City of Anaheim needs to improve its civic aptitude. Their spokesperson should STFU. Conservatives will attempt to exploit this egregious mistake. Sadly, they will not see that free expression needs to also belong to communism and the discussion of racism in America, aka critical race theory. Open minds rely upon open ears.

    1. Please illuminate what “speech” you think Greene and/or Gaetz currently have to contribute to the public discourse.

      These are people not known to have a consistent set of ideological views or policy positions they’re trying to advocate for. They have lies, conspiracies, and an awful lot of spotlight-hogging designed to boost their political careers or protect themselves from criminal inquiries.

      A “liberal mind” ought to be able to engage with contrary viewpoints and arguments. But there is no need for the “liberal mind” to tolerate the claptrap of poseurs and conmen.

        1. If you feel that Greene and Gaetz have anything worth saying, I kind of feel sorry for you. Your world must be dark and confusing.

          1. HL Mencken was a genius, you’re an idiot.

            The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

            1. If you need a hint as to where you are on the scale between them, finding excuses for hanging out with scoundrels is not a sign of genius.

      1. “to tolerate the claptrap of poseurs and conmen”
        Why should your view of the value of speech have any relevance to the matter?
        So what that Greene is a crazy? I ‘ll grant you that.

        1. The people of her district made their choice, and now they’re stuck with her. Doesn’t mean that anyone else owes her a place to rant.

      2. You would have been right at home in Berlin in the 1930s.

    2. “Conservatives will attempt to exploit this egregious mistake.”

      So would you say they will “pounce”?

      1. I think they’re “seizing” this week, but I’d need to check the calendar.

    3. “It is a fundamental tenet of a liberal mind to allow all voices to speak.”

      Sort of. It’s not a requirement that anyone help the speaker find a place to speak. Does Anaheim control every venue in the United States in it’s iron, authoritarian grip?

  22. If the city made the venue cancel, that’s obviously unconstitutional.

    But that’s not been established. All we have is government speech and private (dis)association.

    Just because you think you’re oppressed doesn’t mean you get to make up facts about how you bet it was the government behind it all.

    Unless, I suppose, you just want to caterwaul on the Internet about largely unestablished scenarios. Which seems to be the main pastime of the right nowadays.

    1. “All we have is government speech and private (dis)association.”

      …And a pattern of behavior…

      1. What pattern? That mainstream society tends to reject the fascist, extremist ideologues and scam artists of the Right? Gosh, how could that pattern be emerging?

        1. A pattern of speech suppression….

          1. Not wanting to hear what you have to say is NOT suppression of speech.

            1. And free people can and do make that choice

    2. This is reason- of course they’re going with their chosen narrative.

      But heaven forbid a private venue doesn’t want to associate with the pond scum of society.

    3. Useful idiots like you won’t be exempt from the firing squad.

      [Antifa] Activists work to block journalists from full, accurate coverage of occupation outside ‘red house’ in N. Portland

      http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/12/activists-work-to-block-journalists-from-full-accurate-coverage-of-occupation-outside-red-house-in-n-portland.html

      1. “Useful idiots like you won’t be exempt from the firing squad.”

        But useless ones like yourself will be?

        1. I will not be standing in front of any Marxist firing squad.

          You on the other hand…

          1. I have no opinion on what kind of firing squad you should stand in front of.

    4. Quotes from the above article:

      Quote:
      Journalists attempting to cover the activist-led occupation along a blocks-long stretch of North Portland have been repeatedly intimidated and, in some cases, roughed up by protesters.

      Hours after police retreated from the area Tuesday morning, several masked demonstrators surrounded KATU television journalists Genevieve Reaume and Ric Peavyhouse as they entered the barricaded zone to interview occupants.

      Video shows the demonstrators used umbrellas to block the reporters from filming and made multiple verbal threats.

      One of them knocked Reaume’s phone from her hand and shattered it on the ground, she said in an interview. Reaume said the demonstrator also stomped on her hand as she reached for the broken phone.

      The bloody injury required medical attention, the news team said. KATU News filed an assault report with Portland police.

  23. a duty to call out speech

    “Call out” means criticize. This is not about criticizing prior speech, it’s about preventing future speech. Nice try though.

    1. No speech was prevented. What was prevented was gathering a crowd.

      1. You are a dishonest and mendacious gaslighter.

        1. And you are an admitted idiot. So your opinion is of no import to people of at least normal intelligence. That all you got?

  24. Mike Lyster’s announcement does support the suspicion that “security concerns” was a pretext. I’m no fan of Greene and Gaetz, but their speech is as entitled to protection as any.

    On the other hand, the history of this event is illuminating:
    – Last week it was planned for the Laguna Hills Event Center, but they canceled when they found out who the speakers would be. General Manager Javad Mirtavoosi: “We just want to stay clear of that. As soon as we found out who the speakers were we immediately canceled it.”
    – After searching for a week the Riverside Convention Center was announced as the new venue, two days before the event. But late Friday Raincross Hospitality who runs that facility canceled too.
    – 10 PM Friday, less than 24 hours before the event, an e-mail from the organizers announced it had moved to the Anaheim Event Center.
    Now Anaheim already had three events on Saturday, including an Angels game, and it’s plausible that they couldn’t make adequate security arrangements for a fourth with such little notice, especially a fourth that would be as likely to attract protests as this one. Maybe the security concerns were real, and Mike Lyster’s crowing was just unwise and undeserved self-congratulation.

    It all comes down to the facts, and I hope we get more of them.

    1. Greene and Gaetz are engaged in a large-scale fraud effected through PACs, just like Trump is doing with his lawsuit against Facebook. They don’t actually have anything to say, besides, “Give us more of your money, you ignorant chumps!”

      1. If they say something illegal that can be dealt with after they say it, not before.

        1. Not having anything to say isn’t illegal, so that’s a useless distinction.

      2. Did you ever hear of “prior restraint?”

        1. Absolutely we should let the stupid people go to the stupid people gatherings. It helps the rational people know whose opinions to disregard as worthless.

      3. Meanwhile SimonP is engaged in the large-scale spreading of horseshit.

        1. “SimonP is engaged in the large-scale spreading of horseshit.”

          And you’re objecting that someone’s cutting in on your racket?

  25. Legal issues aside, in a non-fascist jurisdiction, if the authorities had “public safety concerns” that a political event might be disrupted, they would offer to protect such event (instead of discouraging the operator from holding the event in the first place).

    1. Of course, in our political environment, such “protection” would come only in the form of adding police, who have a funny way of instigating their own violence – against rally-goers or counter-protestors, really just depending on whose side they’re on.

    2. “Legal issues aside, in a non-fascist jurisdiction, if the authorities had “public safety concerns” that a political event might be disrupted, they would offer to protect such event ”

      right, except that these are people who refuse to protect themselves (by getting vaccinated), and who refuse to protect others (by refusing to wear a mask).

  26. Eugene – the main inference I’m drawing from this post is that you’re leaning in fully to the ignorant grievance politics of our time.

    There is, of course, nothing about this announcement, or the apparent fact of the rally’s cancellation, that offers us much clue as to what was actually said or what “public safety concerns” ultimately led the operator to cancel the rally. By inviting speculation, you’re essentially just providing a platform for the conspiratorially-minded to fill in the blanks with the worst possible explanations.

    One might call that “irresponsible.”

    In any event, given the fondness among the insurrectionist fascists likely to attend this kind of event to forgo the vaccine, dispense with masks, and engage in political violence, I can think of a number of “public safety concerns” that might motivate an operator to cancel a planned rally for them.

    1. The Antifa supporter has just outed himself.

      Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler moving to avoid rioters targeting his home

      https://nypost.com/2020/09/02/portland-mayor-wheeler-moving-to-avoid-rioters-targeting-building/

      The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon the Right but it usually turns out to be composed of the Left.

      1. Yeah, like all of those Antifa protesters who tried to stop Biden from being confirmed as president! Or, wait, are we saying those were patriotic and peaceful Trump supporters, now? Gosh the narrative keeps slipping around on me…

        JSYK, historically the fascist Right has called their violent opponents “communists,” which is probably a more consistently on-brand way for you to spin these kinds of riots. It gets a bit confusing when the people trying to restrict the franchise, overturn elections, regulate speech and protest, and bolster the police use the term “fascist” to refer to the largely powerless groups of rioters who engage in arson from time to time.

        1. the largely powerless groups of rioters who engage in arson from time to time.

          Would you mind posting your home address so that largely powerless arson can be visited upon your home?

          The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it usually turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.


          Antifa Rioters Break Into Portland Police Union and Set It on Fire

          Quote:
          On Saturday evening, two groups of antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters terrorized Portland, squaring off against police and federal troops. One group attacked the Portland Police Bureau’s North Precinct and the Portland Police Association (PPA) — the police union — while the other group targeted the federal courthouse and Justice Center, returning to set yet another bonfire at the ruins of the elk statue nearby.

          At about 10:45 p.m., antifa rioters broke into the PPA office and ignited a fire inside.

          1. I thought it was the R’s who were anti-union, and anti-public-sector-union in particular.

        2. Also speaking of largely powerless groups of rioters who engage in arson from time to time:


          Fire set at St. John’s church in D.C. during protests of George Floyd’s death – The Washington Post

          Quote:
          A fire was set in the basement nursery of historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, across Lafayette Square from the White House, during demonstrations Sunday night expressing outrage at the death of George Floyd in police custody.

          Although the protests were largely peaceful in the afternoon and evening, small groups of people began setting fires and smashing windows once darkness fell.

          Shortly after 10 p.m., someone tore down the American flag that hangs outside the butter-yellow church and appeared to toss the flag into a nearby fire. A glass door or window was shattered.

          D.C. police said a small fire was deliberately set in the basement. Under police escort, D.C. firefighters quickly extinguished it.

          To those who support or downplay this, you will be among the useful idiots who are thrown up against the firing squad wall when you have outlived your usefulness to the Marxist mob.

        3. Sorry, all these comments are irrelevant to the question at hand, namely, did the city of Anaheim conspire to engage in prior restraint of protected speech?

          1. And the answer is: we have no idea, but if I were the city’s lawyer, I’d be throwing the phone of whoever tweeted the above public statement out a twelfth-story window, and then throwing the tweeter after it.

        4. Historically, the Stalinists who started Antifa in 1932 in Germany declared anything that wasn’t communism to be fascism. Thus the folks who named the “Antifascist Protection Rampart”. (Known primarily as “The Berlin Wall” in the West.) Certainly the East Germans never engaged in regulation of speech or protest, or bolstered the police…

          Not everyone on the left is a communist, and not everyone on the right is a fascist, and most of the time the people who use the term “fascist” actually mean “authoritarian” anyway, which is hardly a feature exclusive to the left or the right.

          1. ” not everyone on the right is a fascist”

            I believe the term for the ones who aren’t is “RINO”.

      2. “The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon the Right but it usually turns out to be composed of the Left.”

        Yes, most extremist rightists turn out to really be leftists. Did you mean to out yourself?

      3. “The Antifa supporter has just outed himself.”

        His name appears to be “Kevin”.

    2. So because you think these folks are insurrectionist fascists no speech for you? Dude you are a joke

      1. Good point. Conservative Republican bigots — and the half-educated hayseeds and impotent culture war casualties who wish to listen to right-wing drivel — have rights, too.

        1. They have a right to be ignored. For their own damn good.

    3. “One might call that “irresponsible.”
      A one might call this post poppycock.

      1. “A one might call this post poppycock.”

        What would a person who can write in English call it? Or were you idenfying yourself by your likelihood of success? (on a scale of from you to ten)

  27. FWIW, the Anaheim Convention Center is owned by the city but managed by Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau.

  28. Well the stated reason was “values”. Which seems more like viewpoint which seems like a 1A violation.

    1. Actually, if you’re capable of reading beyond a first-grade level, you would have noticed the reason provided was ‘security concerns.’

      1. No I read their first release just fine. Which is what they really meant

        1. See? That’s how you deal with details. Just ignore the ones that don’t work for you.

  29. Any large gathering featuring those two creates a legitimate public safety concern. January 6 (and their support of what happened) destroyed the viewpoint-neutral rule.

    1. Got your full fascist going today I see.

      1. No, their event was cancelled.

        1. I don’t think you understand wha the word means

          1. Which of my five words was used incorrectly? Hint: none of them.

    2. So January 6 made the First Amendment moot, in your view?

      1. Yep. Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” is now constitutional law.

      2. “So January 6 made the First Amendment moot, in your view?”

        The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I read that somewhere.

    3. It does not worry that way, capt

      1. No worries, mate.

  30. I missing the “unless the authorities think the speech is a safety concern” clause in this:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    1. Try again. Anaheim is not Congress.

      1. Ha ha are you serious? Local governments can’t violate the constitution.

        1. Ha ha. Is English not your first language? The first amendment uses simple words, “Congress shall make no…” If you want to complain about something Anaheim does or doesn’t do, you don’t want to cite the first amendment, which does not say a damn word about what Anaheim may do.
          As I said, try again. Hint: between 13.9 and 15.

      2. People who are unfamiliar with the incorporation of the 1st amendment against the states (including their municipalities) can safely be ignored when then pontificate on 1st amendment law.

        1. When *they* pontificate

          1. So which category of “to be ignored” are you self-identifying as?

        2. People who want to refer to the 14th amendment but forget to say anything about the 14th amendment can be similarly ignored.

  31. I find much of what Rep. Gaetz and Green have to say ignorant and sometimes reprehensible – likewise Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib. But I would never support the government preventing them, or anyone, from speaking because ” … the speech does not reflect our … values”.

    I’m not sure there is a complete and accurate answer for all the questions posed, as it’s not clear to me exactly what the city thought or did that’s not found in the post.

    1.) I would “guess” that the city would have tried to have the private venue cancel the event first, but I’m not sure much else should be based on that speculation.

    2.) I have long thought that Anaheim was a Republican city in a Republican county, and I don’t see any evidence that the city was thinking along political lines in this case – to me the cities’ political tendencies would tend to support the opposite assumption. If, instead, this had been a Ocasio-Cortez/Tlaib event, cancelled by Anaheim (especially if Anaheim had accompanied that cancellation with their statement that the speech does not reflect the values of the city of Anaheim), I would have been more inclinded to think the expected speech content (and politics in general) was involved.

    3.) In general, I believe that when a tactic succeeds (assuming here, there was a legitimate suspicion of a threat of violence, and that the suspected threat was a tactic, largely intended by private individuals opposed to Gaetz and Green, to get the event cancelled), the tactic will be repeated.

    I’d like to think there’s a better approach than the one Anaheim took. An approach requiring that the government have some legal recourse for dealing with threats of violence, other than, as in this case, shutting down the event. It costs money to provide security for events like these and I don’t favor expecting tax payers to pay all (or possibly any) of those expenses. Perhaps the city could have required some sort of security bond to be paid for by those staging the event, and/or to have those staging the event supply the necessary security measures.

    1. Security bonds have been misused frequently to shut down events, and they amount to recognizing a heckler’s veto.

      So, NO. The City needs to protect public safety for EVERYONE, not just their favored constituents. Otherwise, it can stop collecting taxes from everyone.

      1. Not holding super-spreader events is for EVERYONE.

        1. Dear gaslighter, is “super spreader” your excuse now?

          I thought the event offended the values of the City bureaucracy?

          1. You seem confused.

            1. More than usual, I mean.

    2. A quick google provided the following information for Orange County, CA (where Anaheim is located)
      Democrat: 37%
      Republican: 36%
      Independent: 27%

      So your inference of political partisan control isn’t necessarily accurate. The article does state however that it was traditionally republican prior to this and indicates that at least at the county level republicans seem to continue to hold office.

      I couldn’t find anything on Anaheim specifically from the same perspective.

      https://www.thecapistranodispatch.com/by-the-numbers-orange-county-voting-demographics/

      1. The Anaheim City Council is officially “non-partisan” and does not put party affiliation on the ballots.

        That said, it’s easy to match up. It looks like there are 6 council members – 3 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 independent that usually votes with the Democrats. The Mayor is a Republican.

    3. “An approach requiring that the government have some legal recourse for dealing with threats of violence, other than, as in this case, shutting down the event. It costs money to provide security for events like these and I don’t favor expecting tax payers to pay all (or possibly any) of those expenses.”

      As a general rule, isn’t providing police protection a normal expense of government? If necessary, they can recoup expenses by fining anybody who riots. But their recourse against threats of violence should be defending the target of the threat, and jailing the makers of the threats.

      Let’s flip this around: Suppose that the NAACP were holding a conference in the convention center, and the Aryan Nation threatened to attack it. Would we expect the local government to refuse to protect the convention unless a bond were put up? Advise the convention center that it would probably be best to cancel? No, we would not.

      The general rule here is, if you wouldn’t agree to having people you agree with silenced this way by people you abhor, you should not accept people you abhor being silenced by people you agree with. That’s what it means to have actual principles.

      And, realistically, what happened here is that somebody in the local political structure didn’t want that conference there, so they dropped a dime to Antifa or whoever, and got them to phone in a threat to be the basis for canceling it.

      Assuming they didn’t pick up a burner phone, and cut out the middle man.

      1. ” If necessary, they can recoup expenses by fining anybody who riots.”

        Assuming they can catch and convict them. And the costs of catching and trying them doesn’t exceed the value of the fines that can be assessed against them. And, oh yeah, assuming they aren’t judgment-proof in the first place. Throwing them in jail imposes costs on the city’s taxpayers, as well.

        “And, realistically, what happened here is that somebody in the local political structure didn’t want that conference there, so they dropped a dime to Antifa or whoever, and got them to phone in a threat to be the basis for canceling it.”

        That’s some top-grade conspiracy-theory fantasizing, there. Are you saying that’s what you would have done, Brett? It sounds like you’re theorizing from practice.

        “That’s what it means to have actual principles.”

        What do you know about principles? You’re a partisan, and anything that works for your party meets your principles, and don’t even bother denying that.

  32. Lathering clingers;
    a UCLA professor
    lathering his rubes

  33. I don’t think you would find AOC or Tlaib at a “Socialist rally.” So my inference at seeing one cancelled would be that it was a lazy joke to begin with.

    1. I missed that swipe. Prof. Volokh seems to be losing his grip a bit. Perhaps the mainstream’s unjust persecution of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Ted Cruz, Steve King, Richard Spencer, Ammon Bundy, Ted Cotton, and other conservative allies is riling him.

      1. He’d support honest, smart Conservatives on the national stage. Not finding any, this lot is his second choice.

        1. They’re so smart, honest, and effective that you want them blocked from speaking.

          Which you wouldn’t want if they were stupid buffoons. Since stupid buffoons hurt their own side

          1. Did he advocate that they be blocked from speaking? Or was that your straw man peeking out?

            1. Did he advocate canceling the event which is the subject of this thread, or is that a straw man?

              1. Hint: It’s the straw man one.

          2. “They’re so smart, honest, and effective that you want them blocked from speaking.”

            You’re confusing not being bothered that they can’t find a venue that wants them with wanting them blocked from speaking.

            1. They found a venue. Then the city acted to censor them by bullying the venue into giving up their business.

              But, leaving that aside, I’m so glad to see you thing that venues should have the right to have anything to do with any same sex ceremonies, because the venue owners disagree with homosexuality.

              Note: not because they have a religious objection, but because they have a personal objection. Just like the city “leaders” had a person objection to those speakers

              1. “They found a venue. Then the city acted to censor them by bullying the venue into giving up their business.”

                A fact which is proven by the following evidence:

                “They found a venue. Then the city acted to censor them by bullying the venue into giving up their business.”

                Such a pity that you lack the ability to thing at all.

    2. Randal: Well, I don’t know how they choose what rallies to speak at, and what their political calculus would be on such matters. But I used them deliberately, because they both have described themselves as Socialists or supporters of Socialism (see, e.g., here and here).

      1. And if you had said “Democratic Socialist rally” I would have believed you. They’ve both been very careful (along with Bernie) to avoid being labelled “Socialist” but are ok with “Democratic Socialist.” That’s true in the articles you linked; see also https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-explains-what-democratic-socialism-means-2019-3?amp for example.

        Which is about the stupidest branding decision ever of course, like if Trump was going around calling himself a Republican Fascist… “not an actual Fascist! A Republican Fascist.”

        1. The Repubs entertain themselves by claiming that the fascists were actually leftist, as if that were fooling anyone with functional brain cells.

  34. “As a city we respect free speech but also have a duty to call out speech that does not reflect our city and its values,”

    Sorry, but no, you do NOT respect freedom of speech.

    Because blocking people whose speech “does not reflect our city and its values” from speaking is the platonic opposite of respect / value for free speech

    1. ” blocking people whose speech “does not reflect our city and its values” from speaking is the platonic opposite of respect / value for free speech”

      Still not supplying any actual evidence that anyone’s speech was blocked, much less blocked by the city of Anaheim.

  35. “As a city we respect free speech but also have a duty to call out speech that does not reflect our city and its values,”

    Setting aside whether they did anything wrong here, I hate this attitude generally. No. You don’t have a duty to call out speech that doesn’t reflect the city’s values. You have a duty not to do that. A private citizen is free to call out such speech. An elected official speaking in his private capacity is free to call out such speech. But a government official in his government capacity should not be calling out any speech. Period. That’s true whether it’s a congressional resolution or a municipal press release.

    1. I think this is exactly right –

      -City talking about this is bad policy
      -It is legally exposed, making this stupid as well as bad
      -There are no facts indicating the city actually did anything beyond shooting it’s mouth off

      But for most on here ,that’s not enough. They just keep speculating your vast secret government extortion/collusion, and appealing to incredulity that they’re fiction is correct.

      1. There are no facts indicating the city actually did anything beyond shooting it’s mouth off

        Useful idiot alert!

        1. “idiot alert!”

          You don’t have to keep saying this. You name appears above everything you post.

    2. In fact, the phrase “our city and its values” is meaningless.

      The various individual citizens of Anaheim have values. The city has to represent all of them, not just favorite partisans.

      Otherwise the city should stop collecting taxes from its citizens who don’t share “its values”.

      1. “The city has to represent all of them”

        Why would it have to do this? Do they ALSO have to allow pedophile conventions, if anyone in Anaheim happens to be a pedophile? Some Anaheimians are probably nudists, does this mean they can’t require people to cover up their naughty bits if they want to go downtown?

  36. Values? Didn’t SCOTUS OK the American Nazis marching in Skokie back ca. 1977 because of their right to free expression? By what standard are “America First” values more objectionable than Nazis marching in a town then full of Holocaust survivors?

    I suspect that the “City of Anaheim spokesman” screwed up by telling the truth.

    The best hope that civilized people have is that the wokesters are so stupid.

    1. “Didn’t SCOTUS OK the American Nazis marching in Skokie back ca. 1977 because of their right to free expression?”

      Those guys liked wearing masks and hoods, and there wasn’t even a pandemic back then.

  37. Not your best work, prof. But Blackman has been kicking your ass in clickbait for awhile now, so I get it.

    1. Ha lol just had to give you a plaudit for this one, so true.

    2. If he wanted to compete with Blackman, he’d have accused Anaheim of being anti-Semitic (yes, in defense of Rep. Greene).

Please to post comments