{"id":1459027,"date":"2024-02-23T22:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-02-24T03:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/?p=1459027"},"modified":"2024-02-23T22:00:00","modified_gmt":"2024-02-24T03:00:00","slug":"prosecution-of-far-right-but-not-antifa-for-same-riots-constitutionally-impermissible-judge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/prosecution-of-far-right-but-not-antifa-for-same-riots-constitutionally-impermissible-judge\/1459027\/","title":{"rendered":"Prosecution Of Far-Right But Not Antifa For Same Riots ‘Constitutionally Impermissible’: Judge"},"content":{"rendered":"

Prosecution Of Far-Right But Not Antifa For Same Riots ‘Constitutionally Impermissible’: Judge<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times<\/a> (emphasis ours),<\/em><\/p>\n

A federal judge on Wednesday found that the \u201cselective prosecution\u201d of far-right groups without charging their far-left counterparts for the same acts is \u201cconstitutionally impermissible.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

An Antifa extremist pushes a burning recycling bin at Trump supporters during a free speech rally in Berkeley, Calif., on April 15, 2017. (Elijah Nouvelage\/Getty Images)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney of southern California therefore dismissed charges against two men from the \u201cwhite nationalist\u201d Rise Above Movement (RAM) who violently clashed with members of the far-left group Antifa at three southern California pro-Trump events in 2017.<\/p>\n

In his 35-page order, the judge stressed the importance of equal protection under the law.<\/strong> He said that although the two men may have been involved in violent acts, prosecutors were wrong to exclusively target them without also pursuing charges against Antifa members implicated in similar violent actions at political events.<\/p>\n

\u201cSuch selective prosecution leaves the troubling impression that the government believes speech on the left more deserving of protection than speech on the right,\u201d Judge Carney wrote (pdf<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The judge said that the fundamental principles of the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble are the \u201cbedrock\u201d of the United States. This is not always easy, he added, noting that sometimes, people use that right to \u201cspread vitriolic and hateful ideas and beliefs.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile Defendants openly promoted ideas the Court finds reprehensible, and likely committed violence for which they deserve to be prosecuted, this case is about something more important.<\/strong> It is about upholding the free speech and assembly rights guaranteed to all of us,\u201d Judge Carney wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt does not matter who you are or what you say. It does not matter whether you are a supporter of All Lives Matter or a supporter of Black Lives Matter,\u201d he continued. \u201cIt does not matter whether you are a Zionist professor or part of Students for Justice in Palestine. It does not matter whether you are a member of RAM or Antifa. All are the same under the Constitution, and all receive its protections.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anti-Riot Act Charges<\/h2>\n

The alleged violence at the heart of the case happened during former President Donald Trump\u2019s first year in the White House, during the four months spanning from March to June 2017.<\/p>\n

Prosecutors charged the two men, Robert Rundo, the founder of RAM, and Robert Boman, one of the group\u2019s members, under a federal anti-riot statute in 2018.<\/p>\n

The men were accused of engaging in acts of violence at pro-Trump events in southern California, specifically in Huntington Beach, Berkeley, and San Bernardino.<\/p>\n

Judge Carney dismissed their charges in 2019 but following an appeal, the charges were reinstated in 2021.<\/strong><\/p>\n

With the matter back in the district court, Mr. Rundo and Mr. Boman filed two motions to dismiss the case, arguing that the use of the Anti-Riot Act was unconstitutionally vague and that they were selectively prosecuted and not given equal treatment under the law.<\/p>\n

Judge Carney rejected the first motion, asserting that the alleged conduct of the men clearly falls within the scope of the Anti-Riot Act.<\/p>\n

\u201cThough there may be questions in another case as to what constitutes a violation of the Anti-Riot Act, this is not that case,\u201d he wrote. \u201cDefendants clearly used a facility of interstate commerce shortly before they engaged in riotous activity as proscribed by the Anti-Riot Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

A supporter of U.S. President Trump marches during the “Make America Great Again” rally in Huntington Beach, Calif., on March 25, 2017. (Mark Ralston\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

However, the judge agreed with their second motion\u2019s argument regarding selective prosecution and the violation of equal protection rights. He raised constitutional concerns about the government\u2019s use of the Anti-Riot Act to prosecute the RAM members but not the Antifa members, who engaged in comparable violent acts.<\/p>\n

Mr. Rundo and Mr. Boman argued in their motion that the U.S. government targeted them for their speech and beliefs\u2014and not Antifa and other far-left groups\u2014in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The judge found that the defendants met the high bar of proving that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated.<\/p>\n

The left-leaning Anti-Defamation League, a self-described \u201canti-hate\u201d organization, alleges that RAM is a \u201cwhite supremacist group\u201d made up of members who believe they\u2019re fighting against a \u201cmodern world\u201d that has become corrupted by \u201cdestructive cultural influences.\u201d It says that RAM embraces a \u201cconservative counterculture\u201d that includes traditional Christian values, and they see themselves as \u201cpatriotic crusaders who are fighting against \u2018communist\u2019 forces.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Constitutionally Impermissible\u2019<\/h2>\n

In his order, the judge noted that while the RAM members may have committed violence at political rallies with the intent to shut down the speech of far-left groups, they provided \u201cconsiderable evidence\u201d that Antifa did the same, \u201cif not worse,\u201d at those same events.<\/p>\n

\u201cMembers of Antifa and related far-left groups attended the political rallies and physically assaulted and injured innocent civilians, many of whom were supporters of President Trump and were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. Nonetheless, the government did not use the Anti-Riot Act to prosecute any members of Antifa or related far-left groups,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

The judge noted that Antifa and other far-left groups engaged in \u201cworse conduct\u201d than RAM members and even \u201cinstigated much of the violence\u201d that broke out in order to silence the protected speech of Trump supporters. Yet, the government chose not to prosecute Antifa members for the same violent acts alleged against the defendants.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat is constitutionally impermissible,<\/strong>\u201d Judge Carney wrote.\u00a0\u201cThe government cannot prosecute RAM members such as Defendants while ignoring the violence of members of Antifa and related far-left groups because RAM engaged in what the government and many believe is more offensive speech<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In his order, the judge highlighted the complexity of protecting free speech, which some may not like during divisive times. He argued that the solution is not for the government to \u201csingle out and punish the speech that it and many in the country understandably find repugnant.\u201d<\/p>\n

He referenced the historical legal perspective of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who asserted nearly 100 years ago that combating dangerous speech requires \u201cmore speech, not enforced silence.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe government remains free to prosecute those, like Defendants, who allegedly use violence to suppress First Amendment rights. But it cannot ignore others, equally culpable, because Defendants\u2019 speech and beliefs are more offensive. The Constitution forbids such selective prosecution<\/strong>,\u201d Judge Carney wrote.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nFri, 02\/23\/2024 – 17:00<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200bRead More<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Prosecution Of Far-Right But Not Antifa For Same Riots ‘Constitutionally Impermissible’: Judge Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), A federal judge…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1459027","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","wpcat-1-id"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbimBl-67yH","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1459027","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1459027"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1459027\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1459027"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1459027"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1459027"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}