Judge permits Gaetz, Greene to sue California cities that canceled their events

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Politico

03/22/2024 10:26 PM EDT


A federal judge on Friday cleared the way for Reps. Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene to sue two California cities that canceled their political events in 2021.

But the judge excoriated the two pro-Trump firebrands for attempting to blame the cancellation on a slew of liberal advocacy groups — from the NAACP to the League of Women Voters to LULAC, who the pair accused of conspiring with Anaheim and Riverside, Calif., to shut down their planned rallies.

The lawsuit by the two GOP lawmakers is “utterly devoid of any specifics plausibly alleging such an agreement,” wrote U.S. District Judge Hernan Vera in a 22-page opinion, calling it “both legally and literally, a conspiracy theory that relies purely on conjecture.” In fact, he said, Gaetz and Greene had attempted with their lawsuit what they accused the groups of doing to them: seeking to punish political rivals for speaking out against them.

“[H]aling nine civil rights groups into federal court for speaking out against an event … should shock in equal measure civic members from across the political spectrum,” Vera wrote. The opinion arose from a little-noticed lawsuit that has been pending for months in the Central District of California’s federal courthouse. Gaetz and Greene filed suit in July, seeking damages and a court order prohibiting similar cancellations in the future.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/22/judge-permits-gaetz-greene-to-sue-california-cities-that-canceled-their-events-00148693

[Lovie777]

1. All GQP do is sue, sue, sue................................

blame, cheat, steal and make up shit. I'm sick and tired of their fucked-up shenanigans.

When it backfires, they are the number 1 victims.

They don't govern, they instill fear and hatred and chaos all in the name of their gawd.

Fuck them.

[RKP5637]

3. I second that, fuck them!!!

[marble falls]

4. They really don't care if they win, they're after the headlines from suing in the first place.

[Ferrets are Cool]

2. Maybe this will discourage others from booking magats.

[TeamProg]

5. Cities have the right to protect their citizens from potentially violent and chaotic rallies, parades, festivals and a

multitude of public activities arranged by private groups.

The Idiots will be counter-sued.

[former9thward]

6. They protect themselves with a police presense.

Not by banning rallies and parades. This is a first amendment issue.

[TeamProg]

10. So you think Matt and Marge will win?? Is that what you are saying?

[former9thward]

15. How would I know?

I don't know the facts of their cases. Do you?

[TeamProg]

21. 1st Amend. 'freedom of speech' was your argument as if it's guaranteed under

the Constitution.

Wait, it is! But sometimes it’s not! Such as hate speech or incitement- just like I WAS SAYING.

Jesusfrigginchrist, give me a break.

[former9thward]

23. Hate speech is allowed.

The Supreme Count affirmed that view in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) when the majority Jewish city of Skokie, IL attempted to stop Nazis from holding a rally in their town. The SC said they could march.

[lonely bird]

11. Simple way around that

Ban any such rallies. You are not entitled to a rally arbitrarily. Yes, people can peaceably assemble but there are laws that govern that. The city can demand that they provide security. They can require permits. Conventions, particularly Republican ones, have so-called “free speech zones”.

[former9thward]

14. Free speech zones are not necessarily constitutional.

Most are not. Not everyone has the hundreds of thousands of dollars to take cases to the Supreme Court. In Chicago, where I live, the city has banned Palestinian groups from demonstrating at the Democratic convention this summer. I don't think the courts will uphold that.

Your suggestion that cities can "ban any such rallies" is unconstitutional on its face. It is not the solution.

[lonely bird]

28. Gaetz and Empty Greene can spout whatever they want

They are not entitled to hold rallies.

[limbicnuminousity]

18. Doesn't sound like it was a ban.

The event was cancelled. Gaetz and Greene were and are allowed to pontificate on any street corner they like. Cities aren't obligated to provide a platform for outsiders to speak when their own citizens object.

Don't know the details but the article states the events were cancelled (not banned). They retain first amendment rights. What they're asking for is privilege.

[former9thward]

19. Cities are obligated to provide platforms to outsiders.

No matter what "their own citizens" think. The Supreme Count affirmed that view in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) when the majority Jewish city of Skokie, IL attempted to stop Nazis from holding a rally in their town. The SC said they could march.

[limbicnuminousity]

22. Does that ruling translate?

There's a difference between a bunch of Nazi's saying they want to show up and have a rally versus a politico demanding a reservation in City Hall (or wherever they hoped to speak) and an audience.

If turnout is anticipated to be low is the city obligated to provide access to prime venues?

[former9thward]

24. You are either assuming facts about the case or know them.

I do neither.

[limbicnuminousity]

25. Assuming, no question.

Barring details on precisely why the events were cancelled conjecture is what's left. You've asserted that it's a first amendment issue. I guess I'm wondering if you aren't making assumptions. Are there not situations where the cancellations might be, in fact, legal?

Sure, it could be a first amendment issue.

But these are the same people insisting that businesses and pharmacists don't have to serve customers due to moral objection. So, I fail to see any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If their first amendment rights have been violated they are welcome to prove it. If, otoh, their rallies were cancelled due to lack of interest or even because they failed to complete some minor bureaucratic process required for approval.. well, I find it difficult to manifest much in the way of sympathy.

[onenote]

31. If you'd like to read the decision, you can do so using this link

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.891532/gov.uscourts.cacd.891532.95.0.pdf

[onenote]

32. One of the venues was owned by Riverside, who had agreed to rent it to Gaetz and Greene

before canceling it. If the City had a non-viewpoint based reason for cancelling the lease, they don't appear to have cited it support of their motion to dismiss. And the use of a private facility allegedly was cancelled because the city of Oakland coerced the owner of the private facility to cancel it. Whether the facts will sustain that charge is what is to be decided at trial.

Here's the decision if you are interested https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.891532/gov.uscourts.cacd.891532.95.0.pdf

[limbicnuminousity]

33. Thanks for the link!

I am curious how the law ends up being interpreted on this one.

[Traildogbob]

8. Worked out good J6.

[onenote]

29. They will not be "counter-sued"

I suggest you read the court's decision.bhttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.891532/gov.uscourts.cacd.891532.95.0.pdf

If the Cities of Riverside and Anaheim -- the municipal defendants -- had a viewpoint neutral reason for cancelling, or coercing the cancellation of the rally, one would have expected them to make that argument in support of their motion to dismiss. Nothing in the decision suggests that they made such an argument or otherwise offered a constitutionally permissible basis for causing, or coercing the cancellation. Rather, they claim they didn't cause or coerce it. They might succeed at trial on that factual issue, but they lost on the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs presented enough evidence for their case to go forward.

[Mawspam2]

7. Fine, let them sue. Then hit them with a Slappback suit.

[onenote]

34. Little late for that

To bring an anti-SLAPP action, and assuming it can be brought in federal court, the defendant cities would have to move to dismiss the complaint, alleging that it targeted the cities exercise of their free speech rights. But the defendants did not include an anti-SLAPP claim in their motion to dismiss, which was brought under federal rule of civil procedure 12( b ) ( 6 ) — failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. More to the point, the court, in rejecting defendants’ motion to dismiss, found that the lawsuit was not directed at the cities’ speech, but at their conduct.

[GreenWave]

9. Require a mental competency test of them if the charges are insane.

Until they pass, no more frivolous lawsuits.

[SouthernDem4ever]

12. Can we sue Gaetz and Greene for failure in their duties

to at least recover what we spent on them in Congress?

[Mr. Evil]

13. I sure wish that was a law!

That would be awesome. Gym Jordan would've been gone years ago. He hasn't done shit (except for the slinging of it).

[FakeNoose]

16. Better yet, sue the newspapers that carry headline-grabbing stories about Gaetz and Greene

If these stories sank like a stone and didn't give them the publicity they crave, it would all stop immediately.

[onenote]

30. Sue newspapers for exercising their first amendment protected editorial rights?

What is happening to DU?

[Bayard]

17. Just protecting their cities from Monsters Inc.

Isn't hate speech still prohibited?

[former9thward]

20. Hate speech has never been prohibited.

There are hate crimes but that is not speech.

[Traildogbob]

26. Maybe Cali

Can ban them both as a State wide health risk to the citizens. Gaetz is a Petri dish from Florida with Covid, Measles and evidently Leprocy has raised its head in Florida now. Not to mention STD’s from those two fine Christian’s.

[multigraincracker]

27. In this free country,

everyone is free to sue anyone and everyone. Does not mean they can or will win.
That’s how I see it.

[NanaCat]

35. Two of the venues were privately owned

The seditious wankers might have a case with the Riverside Convention Bureau because it's public property, but not with the Pacific Hills facility in Laguna Hills and M3 Live in Anaheim. The latter two are under private ownership.

After citizens brought concerns about security to their attention, cities relayed those issues to the private venue owners, as is not only their right but also their duty. The venues then made the decision to cancel the events, not the city.

They have the right to cancel events, for any reason they like.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gaetz-greene-california-rally-cancel-b1885953.html

[onenote]

36. The lawsuits aren't against the private venues themselves. They're against the city for coercing the venue to cancel

Yes, private venues can cancel for any reason -- except when the cancellation is due to governmental coercion, which is what the lawsuit alleges. The suit isn't against the venue, its against the city for allegedly threatening reprisals against the venue in order to coerce it to cancel. Also, neither the court's decision, nor the article linked in your post says anything about the cancellations being due to "security" concerns. Rather, it makes clear that the cancellations were viewpoint based. The court concluded the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to defeat the city's motion to dismiss, leaving the facts to be fully developed at trial.

[NanaCat]

37. I addressed that

The city has the right to address security concerns with a facility if citizens bring concerns about it to their attention.

If citizens had come to them and said, 'That group has associations with terrorists,' and the city didn't speak to the venue about it, then that event got bombed,, the city would most certainly have a great deal of explaining to do, don't you think?

So I guess a city can ignore warnings about potential violence at an event, and risk lawsuits when something dreadful happens. Or speaking up and getting sued for that, too.

It's an impossible Catch-22.

[onenote]

38. This case has zero to do with security concerns.

The defendant cities did not argue that they were motivated by citizen concerns over potential violence. They failed to counter the allegations, taken as true in the motion to dismiss context, that they were motivated by their disagreement with the political views expressed by Gaetz and Greene. Moreover, the cities weren't sued because they expressed concerns to the venue -- they were sued because they used coercive tactics, including threats of economic reprisal, to force the venues into cancelling.

In short, your hypothetical isn't remotely similar the case at hand. A city with security concerns can express them to a venue. There might even be circumstances where they could force the cancellation due to security issues, if they were more than just hypothetical.

If you haven't done so, I suggest you read the opinion. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.891532/gov.uscourts.cacd.891532.95.0.pdf
It does not create a Catch 22 situation, impossible or otherwise.