As a fellow "domestic terrorist", I applaud them:
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/NRA-sues-sf-bos-domestic-terrorist-lawsuit-14426455.php
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/NRA-sues-sf-bos-domestic-terrorist-lawsuit-14426455.php
We've discussed this before. The NRA would have a very difficult time winning its case.Proving libel should be a slam dunk and the courts have traditionally taken a very dim view of viewpoint discrimination.
We've discussed this before. The NRA would have a very difficult time winning its case.
1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."
2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA. It may even receive an increase in contributions because of this.
3. As a "public figure," the NRA would have to prove that the Board acted with "actual malice" under the rules of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.
Filing the suit is just a way of looking relevant to its own membership.
1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."
2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA.
My answer was based on the assumption that it was a defamation case. As a civil rights violation case, it is even weaker. I expect it to be thrown out of court forthwith. A declaration by a city council that an organization is "terrorist" has no legal effect. It's just their unsupported opinion, and it's beyond the scope of the council's authority. For example, it doesn't place the NRA and its members on a "watch list," preventing them from flying, etc.The NRA didn't file a slander or defamation lawsuit. They filed a civil rights violation lawsuit:
A declaration by a city council that an organization is "terrorist" has no legal effect.
Perhaps the SF Council is wrong to attempt to stifle the NRA's free speech, but the NRA is equally wrong to try to stifle the Council's free speech.
Does it place the members on a "red flag" list somewhere? WILL it?My answer was based on the assumption that it was a defamation case. As a civil rights violation case, it is even weaker. I expect it to be thrown out of court forthwith. A declaration by a city council that an organization is "terrorist" has no legal effect. It's just their unsupported opinion, and it's beyond the scope of the council's authority. For example, it doesn't place the NRA and its members on a "watch list," preventing them from flying, etc.
What we really have here are two opposing sides each exercising their right of free speech. Perhaps the SF Council is wrong to attempt to stifle the NRA's free speech, but the NRA is equally wrong to try to stifle the Council's free speech. The courts are going to wash their hands of the whole thing.
We've discussed this before. The NRA would have a very difficult time winning its case.
1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."
2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA. It may even receive an increase in contributions because of this.
3. As a "public figure," the NRA would have to prove that the Board acted with "actual malice" under the rules of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.
Filing the suit is just a way of looking relevant to its own membership.
San Francisco is one of those places where politicians gain points by demonizing the NRA. Northern Virginia (where I live) is another. Our congressman (Gerry Connolly) makes a selling point of his "F" rating from the NRA. (Ironically the NRA headquarters is in the district.)There is a reason politicians try not to go head on with the NRA. San Francisco is about to find out the reason why.
Proving libel should be a slam dunk and the courts have traditionally taken a very dim view of viewpoint discrimination. I hope the NRA gets a nice big $ judgement, although just seeing the SF Board of Supervisors get smacked down would be satisfying enough.
We've discussed this before. The NRA would have a very difficult time winning its case.
1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."
2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA. It may even receive an increase in contributions because of this.
3. As a "public figure," the NRA would have to prove that the Board acted with "actual malice" under the rules of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.
Filing the suit is just a way of looking relevant to its own membership.