Which should inspire patriots, conservatives, and constitutionalists who live in other parts of the country to cling to their liberties like they’re clinging to their own lives, because in essence, you are.
A California couple who painted over a “Black Lives Matter” street ‘mural’ has been arrested, but they weren’t simply charged with misdemeanor property damage. They were charged with a hate crime, according to Zero Hedge, which posted a copy of the charging statement from the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, led by Diana Becton — who is black.
https://twitter.com/KCBSRadio/status/1280633105712209920
“Nicole Anderson (42-years old Martinez resident) and David Nelson (53-years-old Martinez resident) with three misdemeanor counts, including a hate crime, for their alleged actions on Saturday, July 4, when defendant Anderson covered up a Black Lives Matter mural with black paint. Nelson directly aided in the alleged criminal conduct,” a statement from Becton’s office reads.
In a video of the act, Nelson can be heard saying “we’re sick of this narrative. … the narrative of police brutality, the narrative of oppression, the narrative of racism is a lie,” as Anderson paints over the mural.
“America is great,” she added.
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1280681063946186753
One bystander can be heard saying, “This is racist what you’re doing,” without explaining exactly why.
As for the act of painting on city streets, Mark Glennon at Wirepoints adds:
Are Black Lives Matter supporters free to paint those words and its slogans on public streets? Do others have a right to put up contradictory views or cancel out BLM messages?
Those questions should be trending, given recent headlines, but they are yet to be discussed in the press. Perhaps that’s because answers are unclear, at least as far as I can tell.
He goes on to note that the law, the Constitution, and court precedent are at odds regarding these kinds of street messages which are clearly political. (Related: Black militants are now anti-White, anti-Jew, anti-Israel: Armed Black extremists vow to “take Texas” as BLM protesters declare “death to Israel and America.”)
On the one hand, he notes, the “public forum doctrine, which courts have recognized under the First Amendment for over 80 years, requires ‘viewpoint neutrality’ when government creates a public forum for speech.”
But, “courts also recognize something called the government speech doctrine, which basically says the government itself can express whatever viewpoint it chooses. So, if the BLM messaging is the city’s own or the city blessed it, it’s probably protected,” he adds.
So which is it? A Boston College legal journal noted, “[T]he government must show that it is not discriminating against a viewpoint. And yet if the government shows that it is condemning or supporting a viewpoint, it may be able to invoke the government speech defense and thereby avoid constitutional scrutiny altogether.”
Meaning, the government speech doctrine actually protects what the First Amendment doesn’t: Government viewpoint discrimination.
It should be noted that Left-wing Marxist public officials in cities around the country arbitrarily decided to ‘commission’ these ridiculous ‘murals’ mostly to push an agenda of hate. It goes without saying that by singling out which ‘lives matter’ more than others, that, in and of itself, could be construed as ‘racist hate speech’ under current laws.
But more than that, these murals were painted without any public input or debate: Local Marxists simply decided on their own to deface streets that are paid for and maintained by all taxpayers, including those who take the decidedly non-racist position that “All Lives Matter,” and yet that message of unity isn’t being allowed.
The Washington Post, predictably, took the side of the Marxists in a Monday story lamenting that “from Cleveland to Montpelier, Vt., BLM street slogans have been defaced” — without ever complaining that other slogans that actually unify Americans are being disallowed, hence, being censored.
Hate speech for painting over a street mural because it says ‘Black Lives Matter.’ This is the extent of Democratic Marxist tyranny.
Okay so, tearing down statues is fine, painting BLM is free speech, painting over it is hate speech. Nothing arbitrary there. Got it.
— Bryan Lawlor (@BryanLawlor4) July 8, 2020
Don't like Marxist revolutions? That's a hate crime buddy.
— Paul Blank (@TheLocalGod) July 8, 2020
Marxist is now a protected class.
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 8, 2020
Aren't the terrorists tearing down national monuments because they hate America committing hate crimes?
— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) July 7, 2020
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
