Kentucky governor apologizes for saying teacher strike led to sexual assaults

By Bernie Woodall

(Reuters) – Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin apologized on Sunday for saying last week that a teacher walkout that shut schools in many of the state’s districts led to children being sexually assaulted.

In an interview with a WDRB-TV television reporter on Friday, the Republican governor said he could guarantee that somewhere in Kentucky a child was sexually assaulted after being left home with no supervision because of the walkout.

In a video statement on Sunday, Bevin said: “I’m sorry for those of you, every single one of you, that has been hurt by things that I’ve said.”

Kentucky’s Republican-majority House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution on Saturday criticizing the governor’s comments, and the Republican state Senate president said Bevin should apologize, according to local media.

Teachers in Kentucky, as well as in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona, have held recent walkouts or protests demanding more funds for education, including teachers’ salaries and pensions.

Kentucky legislators voted on Friday to override Bevin’s veto of a two-year state budget that increased education funding through a $480 million tax increase.

Bevin said on Friday that single-parent households in the state had been forced to leave children at home and in peril of not just sexual assault, but of ingesting poison or being offered drugs for the first time.

In his apology video on Sunday, Bevin appeared to defend some of the comments he had made.

“We can’t be so consumed with the financial that we fail to appreciate the ripple effect of the real people that are involved,” Bevin said on Sunday.

(Reporting by Bernie Woodall in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; Additional reporting by Karen Pierog in Chicago; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Peter Cooney)

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-governor-apologizes-saying-teacher-strike-led-sexual-212333487.html

Buzz Aldrin And 3 Other Astronauts Pass Lie Detector Saying They Saw UFOs


BLuke Miller Truth Theory

The Institute of BioAcoustic Biology in Albany have analyzed audio using state of the art technology. The results show that all 4 astronauts are telling the truth about their encounters.

On the same flight as Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin was the second person to set foot on the Moon (or given these new claims, maybe not). He also claims that during his space travels he encountered alien life, and now there is further evidence to corroborate this story.

Aldrin, Al Worden, Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper are the 4 astronauts that took part in the study from The Institute of BioAcoustic Biology in Albany, Ohio.

The team carried out an analysis of the astronauts vocal patterns using advanced computers and determined that there was no signs of deception and the 4 astronauts believed themselves to be telling the truth.  

The new tech is still top-secret, but it is claimed that it is more reliable than current lie detector tests, and likely to replace the current methods used by the FBI and police.

Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin has always claimed he saw something alien on the trip to the moon saying: “There was something out there that was close enough to be observed, sort of L-shaped.”

Sharry Edwards from BioAcoustics has said that Aldrin is certain he has seen a UFO although his logical mind “cannot explain it”.

Al Worden shared in an interview with Good Morning Britain, that he had seen extraterrestrial life and we are actually aliens which decided to inhabit earth. “If you don’t believe me, go and get books on the ancient Sumerians and see what they had to say about it” says Worden.

The team also analysed recordings from Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper, who are both now deceased.

Edgar Mitchell has gone on record saying aliens prevented nuclear war on Earth to ensure our survival. In Early 2015, Edgar Mitchell also told the Mirror Online that during the nuclear tests at White Sands, several witnesses believed they had seen alien spacecraft hovering above the mushroom clouds that emerged as the result of the detonation of atomic bombs.

Gordon Cooper spoke of chasing a cluster of alien objects.

The tests revealed that all 4 astronauts believed they saw what they claim to have seen. Please share this article.

Image Copyright: mishella / 123RF Stock Photo

I am Luke Miller the author of this article, and creator of Potential For Change. I like to blend psychology and spirituality to help you create more happiness in your life.Grab a copy of my free 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control Here

Source Article from https://truththeory.com/2018/04/09/buzz-aldrin-and-3-other-astronauts-pass-lie-detector-saying-they-saw-ufos/

Nurse Fired For Saying Stephon Clark Deserved To Die Raises $20,000 For Herself

A California nurse who was fired from her job after saying Stephon Clark deserved to be killed by police has raised over $20,000 from a GoFundMe campaign to pay her bills.

Faith Linthicum launched her self-promoting fundraiser over the weekend, writing: “I’m a United States Military veteran who served as a medic, and then fulfilled my dream taking care of people by becoming a nurse. I was recently fired from my job as a nurse at Kaiser Permanente for exercising my First Amendment right to free speech. I am a proud supporter of this great Country, the First Amendment, the rule of law, and law enforcement.”

Linthicum said that she’s “not a hateful or discriminatory person” and that she was fired from her hospital job “without any investigation, and without giving me an opportunity to explain or defend myself.”

“I believe Kaiser Permanente violated my First Amendment right to free speech in order to protect themselves from the wrath of these activists,” she claimed.

(GoFundMe)(GoFundMe)

Linthicum lost her job after she posted a comment on Facebook about the March 18 Sacramento police killing of Clark, 22, who was unarmed when two officers mistook his cellphone for a gun and shot him multiple times in his grandparents’ backyard.

Yeah but he was running from the police jumping over fences and breaking in peoples houses … why run??!!! He deserved it for being stupid,” Linthicum wrote on Facebook, according to the Sacramento Bee. 

Sacramento exploded in protests after the killing, with a march for justice, a fund set up for Clark’s children, and a massive funeral celebrating his life.

Kaiser Permanente said Linthicum’s Facebook post about Clark’s death was a “serious matter” and confirmed she no longer worked for the company. “Kaiser Permanente does not tolerate hate or discrimination … We are deeply saddened by the events associated with Stephon Clark’s death, and will continue to do our part to make sure the community is healthy, safe and inclusive,” an executive told the Sacramento Bee in a statement.  

(Pool via Getty Images)(Pool via Getty Images)

Linthicum says money she raises in her GoFundMe will “pay rent, buy food for myself and my two dogs (French Bulldog & Great Dane), or make my car payments/insurance.”

An anonymous person on Tuesday created a GoFundMe page titled: “Faith Linthicum Fired – Deserved It.” It seeks to raise $25,000, with the proceeds going to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit specializing in civil rights  litigation and tracking of hate groups.

That fund, which by Wednesday had raised $1,000, features a statement that reads: “Please consider donating to a charity like the SPLC who fights hate instead of spreading it. I wouldn’t feel comfortable with this lady treating anyone because of her beliefs. If she doesn’t like the color of your skin, or anything else about you, will she let you die because you deserve it? She’s already raised her donation level from $3500 to  $25,000 because of the coverage from FOX News. Please help stop spreading the hate!” 

  • This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Related Video: Protestor hit by police at Stephon Clark vigil

Watch news, TV and more on Yahoo View.

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/nurse-fired-saying-stephon-clark-143729053.html

Swedish Woman Charged for Saying Immigration Leads to a ‘Goldfish Level IQ’

Home » Europe, Immigration, Suppression » Swedish Woman Charged for Saying Immigration Leads to a ‘Goldfish Level IQ’



 


A 65-year-old woman from Jönköping is now charged with hate against a group of people since she wrote that immigration will lead to a lower IQ level in Sweden, Friatider reports.

“If this continues, the intelligence in Sweden will be at goldfish level”, the woman wrote on a Facebook page called “Stop Abuse of Power”. In her contributions, the woman also made a lot of critical comments about, among other things, Muslims.

Chamber prosecutor Lisa Hedberg, tells Sverige Radio that the number of investigations of hate speech against groups has increased since the “Network Examiner” systematically searches and reports posts, often made by older Swedes.

The 65-year-old woman was brought to the district court. She stands trial for being suspected of hate against a group of people.

Source











RELATED ARTICLES


Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/0uWWulaQuNA/

Trump’s Election Consultants Filmed Saying They Use Bribes and Sex Workers to Entrap Politicians






Trump’s Election Consultants Filmed Saying They Use Bribes and Sex Workers to Entrap Politicians


March 19th, 2018

Via: Channel 4:

An undercover investigation by Channel 4 News reveals how Cambridge Analytica secretly campaigns in elections across the world. Bosses were filmed talking about using bribes, ex-spies, fake IDs and sex workers.

Senior executives at Cambridge Analytica – the data company that credits itself with Donald Trump’s presidential victory – have been secretly filmed saying they could entrap politicians in compromising situations with bribes and Ukrainian sex workers.

In an undercover investigation by Channel 4 News, the company’s chief executive Alexander Nix said the British firm secretly campaigns in elections across the world. This includes operating through a web of shadowy front companies, or by using sub-contractors.

In one exchange, when asked about digging up material on political opponents, Mr Nix said they could “send some girls around to the candidate’s house�, adding that Ukrainian girls “are very beautiful, I find that works very well�.

In another he said: “We’ll offer a large amount of money to the candidate, to finance his campaign in exchange for land for instance, we’ll have the whole thing recorded, we’ll blank out the face of our guy and we post it on the Internet.�

Offering bribes to public officials is an offence under both the UK Bribery Act and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Cambridge Analytica operates in the UK and is registered in the United States.

The admissions were filmed at a series of meetings at London hotels over four months, between November 2017 and January 2018. An undercover reporter for Channel 4 News posed as a fixer for a wealthy client hoping to get candidates elected in Sri Lanka.

Mr Nix told our reporter: “…we’re used to operating through different vehicles, in the shadows, and I look forward to building a very long-term and secretive relationship with you.�















<!–

–>











<!– AD CAN GO HERE

Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices

END: AD CAN GO HERE –>

Leave a Reply


You must be logged in to post a comment.







Source Article from http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=52540

Update: Video of Quentin Tarantino saying he thinks raping 13 year old girls is OK if they are “in to it” has been removed!

The below video has been removed due to “copyright” reasons conveniently today after the Huffington Post, FederalJack.com, and SacredOwls.com published articles including it.

Here is a screen shot of this article earlier today.

And now…

This is clearly part of a cover up. Below is the original article.

I don’t know how This video fell between the seats. I have never seen it before today. As I listened to this Howard Stern interview with Quentin Tarantino where he is an APOLOGIST of Roman Polanski’s RAPE of a 13 YEAR OLD GIRL, I could feel the blood boil just under the skin of my face.

I felt like I didn’t need to ever say this… A 13 YEAR OLD CANNOT CONSENT TO ANYTHING without a parent or legal guardian’s consent. Even then, a parent cannot consent, legally, to just anything PRIOR to the act. SEX WITH A 40 YEAR OLD WHILE DRINKING ALCOHOL, AND CONSUMING ILLEGAL, SCHEDULE A, NARCOTICS UNDER AGE (BEING PROVIDED BY SAID RAPIST, ROMAN POLANSKI) IS RAPE AND IS ILLEGAL.

Let that sink in… Read what was just written above once more.

Quentin said it was not rape because she was “in to it”. Robin and Howard were appalled and agreed that it is rape, credit where due.

HOLLYWOOD, CA - MAY 04: Quentin Tarantino attends the ceremony honoring Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell with a Star on The Hollywood Walk of Fame held on May 4, 2017 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Michael Tran/FilmMagic)

You need to be 18 or older to consent to sex, legally, in practically every US state. It is one thing for a 16 & a 17-year-old to hook up. There is some grey area legally there if both parents are somewhat aware and don’t see harm in the two dating. But a 40-something-year-old “man” (more like predatory human piece of shit) GIVING DRUGS AND ALCOHOL TO A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL to COERCE FALSE (AND ILLEGITIMATE CONSENT)… That is something else all together.

Fucking shame on you Quentin Tarantino, I hoped you would never make my shit list. Don’t let me catch you engaging in pedophilia. Including when you think they are “in to it”. I know what your colleagues are into. We have the videos. We have the photos. We have the tapes.

You’d better hang up that chick habit, hang it up “daddy-o”, or we will cut you up in two. – Chick Habit (off the Death Proof soundtrack)

More resources

Polanski The Predator

Source Article from http://www.federaljack.com/quentin-tarantino-thinks-it-is-ok-to-rape-13-year-old-girls-if-they-are-in-to-it/

Why Doctors are Saying This New Medical Drama is ‘Potentially Harmful’

Fox’s new medical drama The Resident was taken to task on Twitter upon its premiere last week for its completely unrealistic portrayal of what goes on in American healthcare and the January 29 episode, “Comrades in Arms,” was no different as it portrayed medical personnel ordering unnecessary tests to drive up costs and the hospital administration refusing to treat a dying illegal immigrant. 

Doctors on Twitter were completely horrified with this new episode, with one saying, “When you have many, many ACTUAL doctors telling you that your fictional depiction of our chosen profession (one that greatly relies on the trust and participation of our patients) is way off-base and indeed potentially harmful, please take it seriously,” another offered: “Watching @ResidentFOX which may be the worst ever ‘doctor show.’ Money in medicine is a problem, but this show is unrealistic, offensive and potentially harmful to the public’s perception of US medicine,”and still another said, “Seeing people tweeting about how this show is ‘so true’ or that all the top doctors are ‘crooked and money hungry’ or that they’re terrified of getting sick and needing to go to hospital is very upsetting.”

This week, the plot centered around the doctors of Chastain Hospital in the midst of a new initiative called “CUTE” which stands for Code Up To Excellence. 

Barb: Now, to simplify, doctors and nurses at Chastain need to charge more per procedure. 
For example: Ear infection. Typically billed to insurance as service code one at about… Yeah? 
Nicolette: $200. 
Barb: But what if that ear infection took a trip to the brain? That’s now a code four. Serious. Costly. We can bill in the thousands. Illness is unpredictable, so billing must be proactive. Right? It’s called upcoding. Think… CUTE. Code. Up. To. Excellence.

Upcoding is illegal, so I highly doubt hospitals are bringing in consultants to teach their employees to do it. That’s a lot of legal exposure.

If this didn’t make American medicine look evil enough, they then brought in an illegal immigration twist to drive it home. 

Louisa Rodriguez, an employee at Chastain, collapses on the job but, before they can run the tests they need and determine a course of treatment, Barb, the upcoding consultant, looks into her immigration status and goes to the hospital administration, telling them, “Ms. Rodriguez is an uninsured, undocumented immigrant. She has no family in this country. She was brought here from El Salvador as a child.” It sounds like she might not just be an illegal immigrant, but a DREAMer as well. How timely!

Despite being told Lousia will die if she doesn’t get surgery right away, Barb says, “No more tests, no more treatment on our dime. This hospital isn’t a charity.

There are a lot of problems with all this, but the main one is that it is illegal. This “consultant” is a walking lawsuit waiting to happen. As one medical resident tweeted, this is a direct violation of EMTALA, which requires that hospitals treat patients in need, regardless of ability to pay. 

Of course, The Resident‘s rule-breaking hero Conrad Hawkins (Matt Czuchry) figures out a way to help Louisa and gets her ready for surgery, but the evil hospital has one more trick up its sleeve to avoid treating her – calling ICE. 

Conrad: How can I help you, gentlemen? 
ICE Agent: Sir, you need to move aside. 
Conrad: I will, if you tell me what’s going on. 
Devon: Hospitals are sensitive areas, along with schools and churches. And sensitive areas cannot be accessed by immigration officials without arrest warrants or under investigation of an imminent national security threat. ICE policy letter, October 24, 2011. 
ICE Agent: You’re interfering with the actions of authorized federal agents. 
Conrad: You’re gonna regret this. 
ICE Agent: I doubt that. 
Devon: Well then, you better drag us both out of here. 
Nicolette: Conrad. 
Claire: Stop. Step aside or you will both be fired. 
Nicolette: It’s okay. Let them pass. 
Nicolette: Surgery’s underway. Sterile environment. You cannot enter under any circumstance. No one can.

So, Louisa was haphazardly rushed into surgery to stay away from the ICE agents that the hospital called on their own patient. In reality, hospitals do sometimes call immigration on patients, but the government rarely responds, because they would become financially responsible for the patient’s medical care. Instead, the hospital has to pay for it. It is estimated that American hospitals pay nearly $30 billion per year in healthcare for illegal immigrants. Money which, of course, either comes out of budget cuts as the administration is threatening at Chastain Hospital, or the cost is passed on to those who have insurance. 

The Resident wants viewers to think that American healthcare is run by heartless doctors who care about profit over people, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Our healthcare system isn’t perfect, but its certainly better than most alternatives.

This doctor challenged the writer/executive producer on Twitter before being blocked, “I watched your horrible excuse for a medical drama (the plot beyond the medicine is also quite unwatchable). It represented nothing I know medicine to be. Come spend a day watching me take care of dying children. See what medicine is. I gave you an hour of my life, you owe us.”

Source Article from https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/amelia-hamilton/2018/01/30/fox-medical-drama-doctors-potentially-harmful

Saying things that a government official doesn’t like can get you arrested

equal justice under law

    

The Supreme Court faces a test of the authority of politicians to use police to silence their critics.

If a citizen speaks at a public meeting and says something a politician doesn’t like, can the citizen be arrested, cuffed, and carted off to the hoosegow?

Suppose that, during this fraught encounter, the citizen violates some law-even by accident, even one no one has ever heard of, even one dug up after the fact-does that make her arrest constitutional?

Deyshia Hargrave, meet Fane Lozman. You need to follow his case.

Hargrave is a language arts teacher in Kaplan, Louisana. She was arrested Monday after she questioned school-district policy during public comment at a school board meeting.

She asked why the superintendent of schools was receiving a five-figure raise when local teachers had not had a permanent pay increase in a decade. As she was speaking, the school-board president slammed his gavel, and a police officer told her to leave. She left, but once she went into the hall, the officer took her to the ground, handcuffed her, and arrested her for “remaining after having been forbidden” and “resisting an officer.”

Fane Lozman, whose case will be argued in front of the Supreme Court on February 27, faced the same fate at a meeting of the Riviera Beach, Florida, city council in November 2006. Lozman, remarkably enough, has made his way to the high court more or less without assistance twice in the past four years, arguing two different aspects of his acrimonious dispute with the Riviera Beach city government. The first case, which Lozman won, asked whether his motorless plywood “floating home” was actually a “vessel” subject to federal admiralty law. (Answer, via Justice Stephen Breyer: “Um, no.”) The second case is about police tactics at public meetings; its result could make a profound difference to citizens like Hargrave who want to talk back to local officials without a trip to jail.

In 2006, Lozman was living in his anchored plywood structure, which was moored at a marina in Riviera Beach. City officials planned to use eminent domain to condemn the marina site and redevelop it; Lozman sued to block the plan.

In retaliation, city officials first tried to evict him from the marina. Lozman, representing himself, argued to the jury that this was retaliation, and the jurors threw out the city’s case. The city then brought a bizarre proceeding “in admiralty” against the houseboat itself, claiming it was a “vessel” and thus subject to federal maritime law (hint: no jury). They won an order from a federal court allowing them to destroy the home. Lozman, again acting as his own lawyer, appealed the order-and in 2013 the Supreme Court reversed.

But the struggle was far from over. His original lawsuit against the city had alleged a violation of Florida’s open-meetings law. State authorities sent law enforcement agents to interview council members about those charges. The elected officials were so infuriated that, as one said on the record in a private 2006 meeting, they decided to “intimidate” Lozman and other critics “so that they can feel the same kind of unwarranted heat that we are feeling.” A few months later, Lozman went to the microphone during open comment time at a City Council meeting; but when he mentioned “public corruption” in Palm Beach County (where the city is located), the presiding council member ordered a police officer to arrest him.

He was charged with “disorderly conduct” and “resisting arrest without violence,” but the local prosecutor dropped the charges, saying in essence that no reasonable person would believe them. Lozman then brought a federal lawsuit against the city for “First Amendment retaliation.” A federal judge agreed that Lozman had “compelling” evidence that he’d been arrested as punishment for his protected speech. But the judge then threw out the case, reasoning that he actually could have been charged with the obscure state offense of “willfully interrupt[ing] or disturb[ing] any school or any assembly of people met for the worship of God or for any lawful purpose.”

What this meant, the court decided, was that the officer who arrested Lozman would have had “probable cause” (a reasonable basis to believe a crime had been committed) to arrest him if he had known about “assembly of people” statute and wanted to enforce it. The fact that the officer didn’t know about it was irrelevant-and so was the city’s unconstitutional motive. As long as an officer could have arrested Lozman for something, in other words, the retaliatory motive didn’t matter. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: The existence of probable cause for any offense is an “absolute bar” to a suit for retaliatory arrest, it said.

If you are not a lawyer, ask yourself: Can this possibly be right? Did you by any chance violate, or do anything that might make someone think you had violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation-littering, speeding, failure to signal, improper parking, excessive use of car horn, leash-law or pet waste violation, soliciting beverage-container deposits on beverages bought out of stage, unlicensed cosmetology, unlicensed practice of geology, discharge into a storm drain, spitting on the sidewalk, barratry, champerty, maintenance, affray, seduction, or being a common scold – at any point today? Under the Eleventh Circuit’s rule (which some other circuits also use), police or officials can arrest and silence a Deyshia Hargrave when a politician wants to silence her – if, after the fact, some earnest lawyer can find a such a law, however obscure, that police at the time might have thought she was violating, even though they weren’t thinking about that.

That issue is vital to the Deyshia Hargraves of this country, as well as to dangerous offenders like Dan Heyman, a reporter arrested for asking a question of then – Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price inside the West Virginia capitol. Charges were dropped – but, if they pay no price for these tactics, local jacks-in-office will be able to silence and intimidate critics more or less at will, whether or not they are prosecuted later.

It’s established law that the First Amendment protects citizens from “adverse actions” by government, if the “adverse actions” are “retaliation” for their exercise of First Amendment rights. So a public employee who speaks to the press about a general issue of public concern can’t be fired as punishment; thus, too, officials can’t blackball government contractors for their political or partisan activities. To prove a retaliation claim, a plaintiff has to show that she engaged in protected speech and that the government retaliated because of the speech. There’s a complication, though: The government can then try to show that “the same decision would have been reached had the incident not occurred”; if it makes that showing, the plaintiff will lose.

The Supreme Court has considered a number of retaliation cases, but it has not yet explained how the “same decision” rule applies in this particular situation – when a police officer arrests someone who is speaking against government. The closest it has come is a 2006 case called Hartman v. Moore, which has actually deepened the confusion surrounding the issue.

William Moore, a tech executive, wanted to sell optical character reading equipment to the Postal Service. USPS officials favored a different system; Moore persuaded members of Congress to weigh in on his side, and eventually the USPS was barred from its favored choice. Soon after, USPS inspectors began investigating Moore, and eventually a federal prosecutor brought fraud charges against him – charges so flimsy that a District Court, after hearing six weeks of evidence, found a “complete lack of direct evidence” and tossed the charges.

Moore then sued the prosecutor and the inspectors for “retaliatory prosecution.” The Supreme Court, however, decided that such a claim – a claim that federal investigators and prosecutors had him indicted and prosecuted because of his First Amendment speech – can only succeed when the plaintiff can show complete lack of probable cause for the prosecution.

The reason is complex. To begin with, the court has held that prosecutors themselves can never be sued for the decision to prosecute a given case, no matter how mean or bone-headed. When it comes to prosecutors, courts apply a “a presumption of regularity” – that is, that “a prosecutor has legitimate grounds for the action he takes.” Because of this “absolute immunity,” a plaintiff would have to sue others in the system – in this case, the USPS inspectors-and charge that they caused the prosecutor to proceed without good reason. But if there was “probable cause,” then there was at least one good reason.

The two pieces fit together this way. First, there was probable cause; second, we assume the prosecutor was applying the law in good faith (regularity, y’now). Thus, the probable cause, not retaliation, must have been the reason for the prosecution.

But there’s an important difference between “retaliatory prosecution” – like Hartman, where prosecutors went through an indictment and a trial – and “retaliatory arrest” – where one or two law-enforcement officers arrest a person, silence them for the night, and, often as not, just let them go without charge. A prosecutor need not have been involved at all.

Nonetheless, a number of courts of appeals have concluded that Hartman bars any lawsuits for retaliatory arrest as well as prosecution – if there’s any evidence in the record of what could have been probable cause. That’s the issue the court will decide in Lozman v. Riviera Beach, Florida. It’s one that could either rein in, or embolden, the tiny-handed tyrants who rule county buildings and city halls around the country. (If you want an exhibit of the mindset at issue, consider the unrepentant Anthony Fontana, the school-board president who presided while Deyshia Hargrave was arrested. “Everybody wants to side on the poor little woman who got thrown out,” he told Fox News. “Well, she made a choice. She could have walked out and nothing would have happened.”)

Remember, plaintiffs must show that retaliation was the motive for the arrest. (In Lozman, that wasn’t hard: Meeting transcripts showed that the council wanted to “intimidate” Lozman and let him “feel the unwarranted heat.”) Unlike prosecutors, police officers don’t have immunity, and neither do elected officials who order them to silence citizens. There’s no “presumption” that an arrest is based on “legitimate grounds.”

Much of federal civil-rights law is set up to deter this kind of official bully-boy tactics. And a glimpse at any given front page in 2018 should convince even a cloistered Supreme Court justice that police attacks on free speech are still a problem.

I hope Deyshia Hargove makes her way to Washington on February 27 and sits in the Supreme Court chamber while Lozman’s lawyers argue against the kind of tactics that were used to silence her.

Of course, if she spoke up there, she’d be cuffed and arrested again; but her presence would make a statement nonetheless.

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/374590-Saying-things-that-a-government-official-doesnt-like-can-get-you-arrested