Judicial Watch Sues DC Government for First Amendment Access

Full title..

Judicial Watch Sues DC Government for First Amendment Access to Paint Message on DC Street

Basically the story goes like this.

The mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, gave the group black lives matter permission to paint a message on a street.
The message was, “black lives matter”.
Later permission was granted to write the message, “defund the police” beside the other message.

Now kudos to black lives matter for requesting permission. Nice job.


A few days later the organization, judicial watch, asked permission to write a message on a street.

“Because No One Is Above the Law!”

Three weeks later and no response from the mayors office.
“ The lawsuit alleges that DC officials denied timely, equal access to Judicial Watch to paint its own expressive message and violated federal civil rights law”


I say good for them.
In a tense environment over equal rights the mayor is denying equal rights and should be sued.


www.judicialwatch.org...

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm really not impressed. It's symbolism over substance -- at best. At worst, it's a petty poke in the eye for cheap political points.

Either way, in these times when natural and enumerated rights are being trampled left and right (take that any way you want -- it works on many levels) this is an insult.

Someone painting "Black Lives Matter" on a street is the least of our concerns. And likewise for whatever JW wants to paint on a street. That ain't gonna help any of us, especially not in the areas we most need help.

this is what happens when one party rules for decades.

many years ago I was on a field trip in Philadelphia
they had painted 'Rizzo for Mayor' on the streets.

no corruption there...

a reply to: Boadicea

I totally disagree with allowing any messages painted on public streets.
That being said if you allow one you must allow others or as the lawsuit states it is a violation of civil rights.

The whole point of liberty is equal application of laws.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Boadicea

I totally disagree with allowing any messages painted on public streets.
That being said if you allow one you must allow others or as the lawsuit states it is a violation of civil rights.

I definitely agree about the inappropriateness of any messages painted on public streets -- well, no political or ideological messages. Obviously, traffic signage/messaging is necessary and appropriate.

The whole point of liberty is equal application of laws.

Equal application of the laws is crucial, but as we both agree, the law in this case shouldn't be applicable at all. Not for anyone. I would much prefer to see JW fight that!

a reply to: Boadicea

You know if they complain about that it will be claimed that they are repressing free speech.
But I will also point out that the first request by BLM was made and approved in a few days so judicial watch may not have even known of the request so they would not have been able to oppose the request.

The only thing left is to make sure the laws are applied equally.

a reply to: Bluntone22
I love common sense and people actually fighting for equality. Has anybody else seen any equality matter signs?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Roads are state property, not billboards.
The first message should have been denied immediately.

a reply to: a325nt

I agree.
But virtue signaling took priority for the mayor..
Not sure she actually has the authority though,, not that it stopped her.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Boadicea

You know if they complain about that it will be claimed that they are repressing free speech.

No matter what they do or don't do, someone will complain -- whether about repressing free speech or something else. If JW has its way and gets to paint something, they'll complain that it's "hate speech" or "inciting violence" or whatever. Someone complaining about something is inevitable.

But I will also point out that the first request by BLM was made and approved in a few days so judicial watch may not have even known of the request so they would not have been able to oppose the request.

They probably didn't know at the time. But JW could have sued to have it removed and a court order to stop such a thing from happening again, rather than suing to do the same thing.

The only thing left is to make sure the laws are applied equally.

No. There are other options as noted above.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm really not impressed. It's symbolism over substance -- at best. At worst, it's a petty poke in the eye for cheap political points.

Either way, in these times when natural and enumerated rights are being trampled left and right (take that any way you want -- it works on many levels) this is an insult.

Someone painting "Black Lives Matter" on a street is the least of our concerns. And likewise for whatever JW wants to paint on a street. That ain't gonna help any of us, especially not in the areas we most need help.

So you think the importance of the1st is "the least of our concerns"?

Forrest for the trees detective...... Forrest for the trees.......

a reply to: Mach2

So you think the importance of the1st is "the least of our concerns"?

First, equal application of the law is found within the 14th Amendment -- not the First Amendment. JW is not being denied their free speech, just equal application of the law allowing one group's political messaging but not their political messaging. It's about where and how, not what.

Forrest for the trees detective...... Forrest for the trees.......

Indeed. The forest shows me that the real danger lies in those being "cancelled" from expressing themselves at all -- such as the mass banning recently on Reddit, or the boycott against Facebook if they don't "cancel" certain messages and advertising, the "hate speech" laws that actually criminalize and punish "offenders," the mass intimidation and bullying campaigns against dissenters like JK Rowling, for some actually losing their jobs/careers...

Yes, indeed, forest for the trees. Compared to the above, a little paint in the street is not my biggest concern.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The left keep opening up cans of worms but they hate to eat it.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The message should be allowed - as the other ones were.

Can't say I disagree with the statement, either.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Full title..

Judicial Watch Sues DC Government for First Amendment Access to Paint Message on DC Street

Basically the story goes like this.

The mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, gave the group black lives matter permission to paint a message on a street.
The message was, “black lives matter”.
Later permission was granted to write the message, “defund the police” beside the other message.

Now kudos to black lives matter for requesting permission. Nice job.


A few days later the organization, judicial watch, asked permission to write a message on a street.

“Because No One Is Above the Law!”

Three weeks later and no response from the mayors office.
“ The lawsuit alleges that DC officials denied timely, equal access to Judicial Watch to paint its own expressive message and violated federal civil rights law”


I say good for them.
In a tense environment over equal rights the mayor is denying equal rights and should be sued.


www.judicialwatch.org...

Let's be honest. The Mayor did this with the full knowledge that a lawsuit would come.

Once the lawsuit goes forward, they'll capitulate and remove the BLM message and say something like, "It shouldn't have been permitted".

Meanwhile, that message gets to be on the streets the whole time, and the other doesn't.

Optics, it's all about optics.

Well, that and gaming the system to get what you want done.