Here's Why Iran's Government Has Gotten Away With Tyranny
Trump Says He Is Concerned About the Midterm Elections
Her Baby's Bruise Sent This Mom to the Hospital. What Happened Next Shattered...
Don't Let Cea Weaver's Tears Fool You
Inside the Massachusetts Prison Where Women Live in Fear of 'Transgender' Inmates
Mamdani Voters Shrug at Venezuelan Immigrant's Warning Against Socialism
Guess Who Has Become a Propaganda Tool in Iran As the Regime Shuts...
Over a Dozen Oil Executives to Meet the President Trump As Venezuelan Oil...
'We Support Hamas Here,' Antisemitic Protest Erupts Outside Synagogue Near Jewish Day Scho...
The Gift of America and the Gift of Life
Automakers Eat Billion-Dollar Losses on Electric Vehicles
Texas AG Ken Paxton Shuts Down Taxpayer Funded 'Abortion Tourism'
$500K Stolen, 20 States Targeted: Detroit Man Admits Wire Fraud and Identity Theft
DHS to Surge 1,000 Additional Agents Into Minneapolis As Protests Escalate
Oklahoma Chiropractor Indicted in $30M Health Care Fraud and COVID Relief Theft Scheme
Tipsheet

DC Court Admits What We Already Knew About BLM Vandals Versus Pro-Life Protesters

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the city "all but abandoned enforcement of the defacement ordinance" during the Black Lives Matter protests and riots in 2020 while going after pro-life protesters who used chalk outside an abortion clinic.

Advertisement

The Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America filed the lawsuit against the city after two pro-life activists were arrested in 2020. The court agreed Washington, D.C. "selectively" enforced the anti-graffiti ordinance and found numerous examples of BLM vandals getting away with defacing property with anti-police messages: 

The District all but abandoned enforcement of the defacement ordinance during the Black Lives Matter protests, creating a de facto categorical exemption for individuals who marked 'Black Lives Matter' messages on public and private property. The complaint offers a number of examples. The day after Mayor Bowser’s street mural was revealed, protestors added an equal sign and 'Defund the Police,' so the message read 'Black Lives Matter = Defund the Police.' 

Police officers watched as the alteration took place and did nothing to stop it. Although the Black Lives Matter advocates did not seek a permit or otherwise receive consent, they were neither arrested nor charged under the defacement ordinance. In fact, the District left the addition in place for months, eventually removing it in mid-August.

Another example the court cited was when protesters "covered construction scaffolding outside the Chamber of Commerce with graffiti, murals, and photographs. Again the protesters were neither stopped nor arrested for blatant violations of the defacement ordinance."

Advertisement

Related:

LAW AND ORDER

"Specifically, selective enforcement of a neutral and facially constitutional law may run afoul of the FirstAmendment if the government’s prosecutorial choices turn on the content or viewpoint of speech. It is well established the government 'may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys,'" the court said.

“It’s very encouraging that there was a unanimous 3-0 decision in favor of the free speech rights of pro-life students, peacefully protesting in our nation’s capital,” said Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins. “Viewpoint discrimination is un-American, and, as the case proceeds, we look forward to learning more about how D.C. officials picked winners and losers in their enforcement. Free speech rights you’re afraid to use don’t really exist, and we will keep fighting for the rights of our students to stand up for the preborn and their mothers, and against the predatory abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood.”  

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos