Can Organizations Opposed To Trump Be Sued For Damages?

One of my general concerns is when a legal precedent is set “for a good cause” that is so wide it can later be used for the exact opposite causes. An “end justified the means” effect that then means the “means” can be used for other “ends”.

In this case, I’m thinking of the Southern Poverty Law center “take down” of the KKK. In that case, they put forward the then novel idea that an organization can be held responsible for the actions of the members individually. That is now “settled law”. The KKK lost, their headquarters was sold off and the group essentially forced to disband. The Left loves this ruling.

Yet now we have a couple of groups such as Black Lives Matter and MoveOn.org that are clearly and actively recruiting people to disrupt Trump rallies and deny fundamental rights to his supporters. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech. Etc.

Furthermore, it wouldn’t take Trump to have “standing”. ALL those folks in Arizona currently stuck in a traffic jam have “standing” to sue for loss of time, gasoline, liberties and rights, endangerment (and if any have kids with them “Child Endangerment” as Arizona Sun without water can be life threatening). I’d further speculate that the “organizers” could be held liable for all the excess Police Costs involved. There is ample precedent for “recovery” of police costs from things like folks setting forest fires, even accidentally, or rescue costs even if you didn’t ask to be rescued and someone ELSE decided you needed it. To me, it looks like blocking a road with cars sideways is clearly a violation of law. Are not illegal acts subject to prosecution and suit?

So given all those left wing “sue for everything” precedents, and the clear involvement of deliberately disruptive organizers for the express purpose of denial of civil rights, I am left to wonder: “Where’s The Suit?”

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Can Organizations Opposed To Trump Be Sued For Damages?

  1. omanuel says:

    I personally wish Trump and Cruz would join forces to end control of US policy by the US National Academy of Sciences.

  2. omanuel says:

    Eisenhower warned the public of this danger in his farewell address to the nation on 17 Jan 1961, fifteen years after . . .

    1. George Orwell moved from London to the Scottish Isle of Jura to start writing his warning to the public in 1946: “Nineteen Eighty-Four”

    2. Stalin’s science was first used to deceive and control the public for the UN worldwide

    A. The internal composition of the Sun was changed from:
    _ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
    _ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946
    B. The definition of nuclear stability was changed from:
    _ a.) Minimum value of Aston’s nuclear packing fraction before WWII to
    _ b.) Maximum value of Weizsacker’s average nuclear binding energy after WWII

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812_STALIN'S_SCIENCE

    Seventy years (1946-2016) of deception may end peacefully if Nature agrees to publish the paper now under review, “Solar energy,”

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    Thanks to Climategate, the deception will endanyway, . . . . hopefully without violence ! A genuine alliance of Trump and Cruz might sped up the process and help to avoid violence.

  3. Jeff says:

    Blocking a road with a few cars sideways?
    Where*s sheriff Joe? Nothing a couple of tanks couldn’t take care of…

    (funny thing, in good ol’ Russia or East Europe, those cars would have
    been, erm, stamped a long time ago…).

    I’m getting tired of these snowflakes (usually on welfare or parent-fare) getting
    in the way of those of us who have something to do (and families to support).

    The law of cause and effect. You cause ME a problem, it will AFFECT you…
    (OK, effect, affect – sad that almost no-one knows the multitudes of
    meanings therein anymore)…

  4. Larry Ledwick says:

    It was a temporary blockade and the Sheriff handled it — ended up towing the cars.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/19/protesters-try-to-block-access-to-trump-rally-in-arizona-ahead-big-primary-in-border-state.html

    The whole point of these demonstrations is a giant misdirection. They demonize Trump and at the same time suck all the air out of the news cycle so there is no coverage of Hillary and her crimes.

    It is a double blessing (one of the reasons I hold in the back of my mind the possibility Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary).

    If he is he would do exactly as he is doing offending as many people as possible while stirring up latent hostility built up in the electorate by the tone deaf leadership of both parties. In that scenario the ideal out come is something like the 1968 Democratic Convention where the protests get so overwhelming that someone goes off half cocked and flips the switch into a riot, and Trump will be blamed not the idiots stirring the protest pot. The professional protesters, union thugs and anarchists sub groups don’t care who they are protesting they just want to create maximum disruption and alternative boogie men for the Democrats to point at and rally their flock (sheep) around the candidacy of Hillary.

    It is all theater protest, to stir up every possible grievance and give it currency and front page coverage and bury legitimate election coverage of real issues on page 5, below the fold (date myself with that one, the younger folks will have no clue what I just said).

    That said if the Sheriff had slow walked the response until the traffic jam became heated you could have had burned out cars on the road and of course the trump followers would have been blamed in the media, even if a protestor actually set the fire, and it would be the lead story in all the anti-trump media.

    I see so many parallels between today and the decade of protests during Vietnam it is not even funny, just more of the same game, replayed.

  5. Serioso says:

    The question is not “Where’s the suit?” The question is ‘Where’s your head?”

    A link to the SPLC suit against the KKK is in order, surely:

    https://www.splcenter.org/news/2008/11/14/splc-wins-25-million-verdict-against-imperial-klans-america

    Too bad you didn’t provide it yourself. The SPLC was suing the KKK for promoting violence as an organization. There is little doubt that this is what the KKK did.

    And the people who blocked the roads? Come on! They surely did not promote violence. Now, you say, ” we have a couple of groups such as Black Lives Matter and MoveOn.org that are clearly and actively recruiting people to disrupt Trump rallies and deny fundamental rights to his supporters. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech. Etc” Surely you are joking! These people may well be provoking violence from Trump supporters, but the rest is garbage. The cops escort the protesters out, assembly goes on. To compare groups like BlackLivesMatter and MoveOn.Org with the KKK is silly, absurd, and obscene. As I said before, the question is, “Where’s your head?” (For that matter, where’s your heart? )

    And, I should ask, where’s you brain and where’s your sense of integrity and honesty and decency when (as I am sure you will do) you pick apart my response before posting it in full. Shame!

  6. Lionell says:

    It is not violence as such that is the problem. It is the initiation of force against the individual rights of others. The force need not be violent. Simple interfering with the right of travel, freedom of association, and freedom of speech is sufficient to be a violation of individual rights.

    However, individual rights are no longer considered important nor significant. Thereby making their violation absent of consequence to anyone but the victim. Especially if the offender feels he is somehow a special victim and that his feeling of being victimized makes the offender feel justified to initiate the force. Reason, Reality, and Logic are held to be inapplicable to the situation. Only the feelings and group membership matters.

    The fundamental idea is that “reality is what I feel it is” (Subjective Metaphysics) and “knowledge is what the group feels it is: (Collective Epistemology). As such, only feelings are considered real and individuals are treated as indistinguishable and interchangeable units of their assigned collective. By this philosophy, Rights adhere only to the collective and need not be recognized nor protected especially when the assigned collective has not been assigned to be a protected class. Blank out who does the assignment and how they obtained the authority to make the assignment in the first place.

  7. u.k(us) says:

    You asked for it.

    Well, I think Serioso has cast the bait, now we’ll see if E.M. Smith takes it :)

  8. Jeff says:

    A troll such as “serioso” (more so-so than serious) doesn’t deserve to be dignified by a response.

    Ironic how those bleating the loudest for “free speech” and “equality” are the first to deny them.

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    Don’t feed the troll!…pg

  10. Chuckles says:

    I’m sure there’s quite a bit in the federal RICO and Homeland Security domestic terrorism statutes that would fit the bill perfectly
    And anyone delayed by the blockade would have a civil case against those blockading, if they wished to pursue it.

    A rock group who blocked a freeway in LA were charged with felony conspiracy to commit a public nuisance, and if it were an interstate, I’d imagine ‘interfering with interstate commerce’ would be a winner

  11. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh come on… just one little biscuit to feed the birds?….

    FWIW, Serioso, I didn’t even SEE your response (it didn’t hit any key words, so went ‘up’ immediately when you posted) until last night upon getting home from the movies ( a Hitchcock Double Feature – 39 Steps and Foreign Correspondent both B&W and big screen!) and even then, I was more interested in doing a bit more LENR R&D than dealing with you. (FWIW, I have done that R&D and I’m going to work on a posting next, rather than a lot of time down the rat hole of being ranted at). Both the movies and the R&D far more valuable to me than spending time on your comment.

    I think someone has way too much self importance on evidence in their rant… and it isn’t me.

    I may come back to it later, should I have time left after tea and shopping and before dinner tonight. Or maybe not. Perhaps after dinner. Depends on if anything more important than “do dishes” comes along and displaces it further down the priority list…

  12. gallopingcamel says:

    In 1856 the GOP decided that any presidential candidate who achieved a majority (aka 50.1%) in primary elections would be nominated as the party candidate. If no candidate achieves a majority the nominee is appointed at the GOP convention.

    When conventions choose the nominee the compromise candidate is never the one with the plurality (the most delegates) so you can be sure that neither Trump or Cruz will be nominated if there is a “Contested Convention”.

    There have been 40 presidential elections since 1856 so how did things go for the GOP following a “Contested Convention”? They lost every one except for two elections that featured a contested Democrat convention.

    In this election, the Democrats will not have a “Contested Convention” because Hillary Clinton will win the nomination before the convention.

    The GOP elite is trying to ensure that neither Trump or Cruz can win the 1,237 delegates needed to establish a majority before July 7. If they succeed they will (once again) snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Thank you “Oliver Manuel” for explaining how to prevent this dismal scenario. If it turns out in May or June that neither Trump or Cruz can win a majority they need to “Bury the Hatchet” and announce a Trump/Cruz or Cruz/Trump ticket. They will command at least 70 of the delegates so the other 30% should be invited to fall in line, start a third party or become Democrats. The “Donor Class” that defied the “TEA Party” will finally be defeated by “We the People”.

  13. gallopingcamel says:

    Usually the Vice President is more ornamental than useful. Things might be different with a Cruz/Trump or Trump/Cruz ticket given their different skill sets,

    Cruz is a lawyer who respects the US constitution so he can be relied on to restructure the Department of Justice and the IRS.

    Trump will try to run the USA as a “For Profit” business. This means that federal departments will be expected to show how they contribute to the success of the US economy.

    How well with this work? I am confident it will work better than what we have been doing for the last 15 years.

  14. Larry Ledwick says:

    When conventions choose the nominee the compromise candidate is never the one with the plurality (the most delegates) so you can be sure that neither Trump or Cruz will be nominated if there is a “Contested Convention”.

    Which provides the only rational explanation of why Kasich is still in the race. He is there solely to be a spoiler and prevent that 50.1% being reached by either candidate.

Comments are closed.