Article: California ‘Tyrant Registry’ First Amendment Lawsuit Adds Massachusetts Man

[groundscrapers]

Do you send complaints to this address or the state house

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Diane~Boyer-Vine/Elk-Grove-CA/a5qyvmh

 

[VetteGirlMA]

We're living in some strange times indeed for the people out there, fellow citizens no less, who probably think that trampling on someone else's civil rights is just dandy.

 

[Write Winger]

Do you send complaints to this address or the state house

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Diane~Boyer-Vine/Elk-Grove-CA/a5qyvmh

You posted publicly online public information on a CA public servant that you found publicly online! How DARE you!

 

[P-14]

Comm2A is standing and delivering once more. NICE!

 

[warwickben]

Good luck boss

 

[will99]

Wow! First time reading about this! Great going Derek for bringing the fight to them!

 

[KBCraig]

I thought the subject line meant that California added a Massachusetts man to their list of tyrants.

And then I saw which web forum he runs, and that confirmed it.

 

[AverageJoe]

Exactly this^^ It's fine for them to make targets of private citizens, but when someone publishes a list of tyrants, the constitution goes out the freaking window.

They may attempt to outlaw free speech by declaring "Fake News" unlawful. "Fake News" can cover anything the authorities don't want the public to hear.

 

[omega42]

They may attempt to outlaw free speech by declaring "Fake News" unlawful. "Fake News" can cover anything the authorities don't want the public to hear.

This in spades! FB is in the vanguard on this developing filters on their servers. A billionaire spending money to influence politics ... where is the leftist outrage?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That CA court must have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident to render an enforceable judgment (a question of Constitutional as well as state "long-arm" statutory law), and whether it had personal jurisdiction is an issue that can be raised in an action to enforce the judgment in another jurisdiction's courts.

Which the judgee is most welcome to be represented at for a fee of about $500 per hour.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Today a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction against the state of California, preventing it from attempting to the takedown demand against Derek and the other plaintiff.

Read it here

A few highlights, but it's worth reading most of the decision:

The legislators’ personal information is a matter of public significance:

At its core, Plaintiffs’ speech is a form of political protest. 11 The Court therefore finds that the legislators’ home address and telephone number touch on matters of public concern in the context of Plaintiffs’ speech.

§ 6254.21(c) is not narrowly tailored:

The Court therefore concludes § 6254.21(c)(1) is not narrowly tailored to serve its underlying interests. In addition, because the statute is content-based, Defendant had to show that it is “the least restrictive means to further a compelling interest.” Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 637 (1998) (citation omitted). Defendant has failed to do so. In fact, Defendant made no attempt to explain how §6254.21 is the least restrictive means to further the statute’s goal of protecting covered officials. As noted above, the statute could be less restrictive in that it could proscribe only true threats, or it could require a neutral third-party to determine if the official’s fear is objectively sound, or it could permit an
objective case-by-case determination for liability instead of permitting a covered official to trigger its protections due to the official’s subjective concerns. In summary, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that § 6254.21(c)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to them.

Hoskins’s Commerce Clause challenge:

Thus, California has projected § 6254.21(c) “onto the rest of the nation.” Dean, 342 F.3d at 103. The Court therefore concludes that Hoskins is likely to succeed on his claim that § 6254.21(c), as applied to out-of-state actors like Hoskins, violates the dormant Commerce Clause. See Sam Francis Found., 784 F.3d at 1324 (holding that statute “regulating out-of-state art sales where ‘the seller resides in California,’ . . . and no other connection to California need exist, violates the dormant Commerce Clause as an impermissible regulation of wholly out-of-state conduct.”); see also Dean, 342 F.3d at 103 (holding that Vermont statute that directly regulated speech on the internet outside of Vermont was a “per se violation of the dormant Commerce Clause”).

 

[fishgutzy]

Yet their former AG illegally acquired and published thew list of donors to charities and PACS she and the left oppose in order to incite harassment of those donors.
Goose, meet gander.

 

[Palladin]

From a California court.......impressive