Pledge to Work at No Charge for Activists Resisting Attacks on Free Speech
(From Press Release) – Donald Trump, his “unbridled” courts and federal law enforcement will be “emboldened” to trample on free speech and assembly for years to come predicted a trio of prominent Sacramento area civil rights lawyers late Saturday at the annual meeting of the National Lawyers Guild Sacramento Chapter at McGeorge Law School.
But the lawyers pledged to help the social justice community “resist,” and recruit an army of pro bono lawyers to join them to support activists in the streets.
“We, as lawyers, have to stand with and represent when we can with movements that challenge this oppression. We can help but we (lawyers) are not the answer. It’s because of the people who are out there behind us that we can get results in the courts,” said Mark Merin, a civil rights attorney well known for advocating for social causes.
Linda Parisi, a Lincoln Law School professor and sought-after criminal defense attorney, admitted that “It’s difficult and there may be consequences” resisting Trump and his “long and cold and bitter shadow,” but “we are here on behalf of those who do resist in these serious times.”
“This will be much like the Reagan years and post 9/11 Bush years. The government is an unbridled monster, and there is no check on federal law enforcement, which will be emboldened. The courts will be stacked by Trump,” said Mark Reichel, a civil and criminal defense lawyer who pledged lawyers will stand with the activist community.
The NLG Sacramento has been monitoring law enforcement for years at Sacramento public demonstrations – NLG legal observers wear bright green hats – and have sponsored dozens of Know Your Rights trainings for the community in the past year alone. The Chapter has also provided pro bono lawyers to represent labor, anti-war and other social justice activists in Sacramento.
The National Lawyers Guild, whose membership includes lawyers, legal workers, jailhouse lawyers, and law students, was formed in 1937 as the United States’ first racially-integrated bar association to advocate for the protection of constitutional, human and civil rights. It now has more than 200 city and law school chapters across the U.S. and has the oldest and most extensive network of public interest and human rights activists working within the legal system.
Are these leftist activist lawyers going to stand for the conservative speakers who are getting denied their speaking rights by other leftist activists on college campuses across our nation?
I don’t know ask them. I do find it an interesting disconnect that on the one hand you want them to stand up for conservative speakers but on the other hand you apply a pejorative “leftist” label to them.
How many examples of leftist free speech being trampled can you come up with over the last few years. I can come up with several examples where conservative speech has been trampled.
Here we have lawyers declaring they’re going to defend against the Trump administration trampling free speech when it hasn’t even happened yet when there are plenty of instances where leftist activists are currently shutting down conservative free speech.
My problem is this: you want people to be even-handed – something btw, I think you know I support. But you want to label them with a dismissive labels, it seems counter to what you appear to want to achieve.
Calling someone a leftist activist is a dismissive label?
When used by those on the right it certainly is intended that way. Calling them simply civil rights activists would give legitimacy to their advocacy that the right is unwilling to concede.
I would argue that POTUS declaration that the mainstream press is “the enemy of the people” is, in and of itself a form of “trampling” of free speech. He is no longer a candidate seeking election, but supposedly the leader of all the people. Except maybe those who disagree with his point of view ?
Funny, but I don’t remember Trump shutting down any free speech on our nation’s campuses?
Campus disinvitations based on ideology or controversy.
https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/
The latest incident of conservative speech being shut down by left wing activists just a few days ago:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/10/heather-mac-donald-slams-outbreak-of-student-total/
If you mean Milos, his was apparently “paid speech”, not “free speech”… look at the “speakers fees” for conservatives and liberals, alike… in my opinion, “paid speech” does not fit under the constitutional rubrics… whatever stripe…
As we’ve seen, on either end of the political spectrum, people want to get paid, and/or gain office for speech that will PROFIT them… playing to their audience (who pays) as it were… don’t think that what was the ‘founding fathers’ had on their minds…
Did Howard say something?
Probably they’d (conservative speakers) get better representation if they enlisted right-wing activist or even alt-right activist attorneys… just a guess…
I assume that the ACLU meets anybody’s definition of ‘civil rights activists’. They have a long history of supporting conservative speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-history-of-the-aclu-defending-confederate-veterans-the-kkk-and-rush-limbaugh/?utm_term=.0e1ec4069164
Actually, even “hate speech”… Skokie IL comes to mind…
It might be worth discussing what NLG actually does – which is mostly legal observation in protests likely to result in police confrontation and/ or arrest.