TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) – A federal judge this week rejected a request for a temporary restraining order against a controversial new law championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis to crack down on violent protests.
U.S. District Judge Paul Byron issued a six-page order Tuesday denying a temporary restraining order sought by plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed April 21 in federal court in Orlando.
Judge Rejects Restraining Order For Protest Law
I tried to find the order, but could not fid it. I guess we will have to depend on the article itself.
The accusation made by the plaintiffs (BLM and associates) is simple:
“Petitioners fear they will be unable to exercise their First Amendment rights under the enforcement of this law due to the history of wrongful discretionary and discriminatory actions and crimes of municipal law enforcement officers toward Black and Brown Americans that participate in protests or demonstrations,” the motion said.
But the defendants ran into a judge that had an “unusual” demand for political times like the ones we live in:
But Byron wrote that the plaintiffs’ “analysis of the particular constitutional issues presented here is too thin and conclusory to justify the extraordinary remedy” of a temporary restraining order.
“The fatal flaw of plaintiffs’ motion is that they take for granted that HB 1 is unconstitutional – it may well be, but plaintiffs do not explain how or why,” Byron wrote.
Probably to the shock of the plaintiff, the judge dared to ask for some sort of evidence showing cause. Just because you don’t like something, you just cannot call it unconstitutional and expect the judge to rule in your favor.
There is another lawsuit progressing in another court and Lord knows what the judge will say. But if he/she says something similar, IMHO we can pretty much kiss goodbye this initial effort to curb the new law. And truthfully after reading it several times, I do not see how can it be reverted as the contents simply address violent behavior and the plaintiffs would have to sell to the courts that such violence is protected speech which I doubt the courts, no matter how drunk they could get, accept as true.
I would need to read the details, but judging from the summary you’ve provided and the news article, it seems like the plaintiffs are trying to make the case that violent riots are a legitimate form of protest unduly restricted by the law.
Which is, of course, ridiculous. I know there have been complaints in the past about how protests are shut down due to ‘riotous behavior’ and that police discretion can be abused. No argument there. But if your protest requires thrown objects and looting, it doesn’t exactly fall under First Amendment protections (remember: ‘peaceably’).
Just waiting for someone to call them out with a rebuttal, maybe in an formal court filing in support of the law. Or in a tv debate. Asking opponents of the law why they believe that ILLEGALLY detaining otherwise law-abiding and innocent motorists and their families is an expression of protected speech. Drivers have a lawful right to use the road. And how is that not the same as slavery?
In every self defense law I’ve read, at least from reasonable States, if you have to use force to protect your life during a situation of your own making, like if you randomly punch someone in the head, or in a place you’re not supposed to be then you’re guilty of assault or murder.