The Beastie Boys claim we have a right to party, but that’s not based on anything in the Bill of Rights. Constitutionally-speaking we have the right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, and against self-incrimination among other things. According to the ACLU, we also have the right to riot and they are suing South Dakota to preserve that. How is this a serious organization? This is like suing to protect the right to drown kittens. It doesn’t exist.
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed a law earlier this year known as the “Riot Boosting Act.” It does two things: First it allows the state to prosecute anyone who incites a riot and second, it allows the state to recover damages from people who both encourage and participate in riots.
The law defines rioting as, “any use of force or violence or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law.”
South Dakota passed this legislation because of the liberal kooks and Native American activists “protesting” the Keystone XL Pipeline caused a lot of damage and left tons of garbage. These leftists firebombed workers and cops, destroyed equipment, and attacked anyone who opposed them.
You wouldn’t think this would be controversial in any way, but the ACLU is fuming mad about this and filed suit against the state to block this law.
The Capitol Journal reports:
The South Dakota ACLU sent out a news release on Friday, June 7, announcing that it would be challenging Governor Kristi Noem’s…“Riot Boosting,” Act, in court…
…the ACLU and many other progressive and Indigenous Rights groups have lambasted them as being anti-free speech, racist, and an example of government authority serving corporate interests.
Wow, that’s a solid legal argument, isn’t it? Non-white people can stop themselves from rioting so any law that targets rioting is racist. Maybe it’s just me, but the ACLU’s position that people of color are uncivilized savages seems a tad racist. This is on par with saying that black men can’t stop themselves from raping white women, so an anti-rape law is racist.
Besides the racist thing, the ACLU is challenging the law on the grounds of “what if” which I’m pretty sure isn’t a thing:
“Moreover,” the ACLU’s Friday news release said, “the laws do not clearly describe what conduct or speech is considered ‘riot-boosting’ or ‘encouraging’ a riot. The ACLU argues that such vague and broad language invites arbitrary enforcement, will chill protected speech, and will result in indiscriminate targeting of peaceful organizers.”
So it’s the ACLU’s position that the law might suppress protected free speech, but hasn’t so far. Don’t judges laugh this kind of shit out of court? Actually, they probably found an Obama-appointed judge so this case can proceed and waste tax dollars.
What the ACLU is actually trying to establish with this lawsuit is the people, mostly non-white people, have a constitutional right to throw urine on cops and loot Walmarts. This is legal action to protect Antifa’s “right” to punch people who look like Nazis and Back Lives Matter’s right to destroy their own neighborhoods.
Interestingly enough, there is no actual Constitutional amendment that protects the right to riot. There is one that protects gun ownership rights, but the ACLU will never take a case defending that. They only deal in leftist nonsense and should probably change their name as “American Civil Liberties Union” is deceptive.
