Judge tosses case against BLM
protester who blocked I-25,
citing free speech
The Gazette [Colorado Springs],
by
Lance Benzel
Original Article
Posted By: Christopher L,
5/18/2021 2:28:57 PM
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A judge has tossed the case against one of 18 people cited in Colorado Springs after a Black Lives Matter protest on Interstate 25, calling it a violation of her free-speech rights. El Paso County Court Senior Judge Stephen Sletta on Wednesday dismissed the lone misdemeanor filed against 21-year-old Molly Avion. In a two-page ruling, he found that the state statute used against her — which makes it illegal to obstruct highways — was overly broad in a way that could chill the exercise of the First Amendment and invite “arbitrary” enforcement.CORRECTIONS*
*Byline and Source corrected to site style. Source removed from Intro.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Nimby 5/18/2021 2:34:18 PM (No. 789637)
Will it also be free speech if the motorists don't stop?
62 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
terrywhite 5/18/2021 2:34:40 PM (No. 789639)
Assinine!
29 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
terrywhite 5/18/2021 2:37:52 PM (No. 789645)
Does this mean, then, that the protestors can enter the judges' private property, block his driveway so he's unable to enter or leave as long as they are protesting?
44 people like this.
So I can enter Judge Sletta's courtroom, vociferously protest the teaching of critical race theory in our schools, and be protected under the First Amendment?
33 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
downnout 5/18/2021 2:39:47 PM (No. 789648)
What about the right of citizens to travel freely?
32 people like this.
#4 - There ought to be a few out there willing to test the theory...bring signs supporting BLM and start the disruption...and see what his honor has to say.
17 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
MrDeplorable 5/18/2021 2:44:12 PM (No. 789657)
People! People! Stop reading headlines and read the articles! If you read the whole article, you'll understand exactly why the judge ruled the way he did and you will see that he did the right thing. Think, people, think! It's the only weapon we deplorables have against the mentally ill left.
3 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 5/18/2021 2:54:32 PM (No. 789673)
#1 beat mea too it. Run right over them.
6 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 5/18/2021 3:09:58 PM (No. 789692)
It's probable the Judge's decision will be overruled on appeal for many reasons, including that the "Stop the Steal” protesters were protesting as a different time and different place.
8 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
stablemoney 5/18/2021 3:16:11 PM (No. 789699)
But free speech rights was not the issue, Judge. The issue is does BLM have the right to block the roads. Go back and redo your ruling, Judge, this time taking up the issue at hand, and leaving your personal biases aside, as required by your judicial oath of office.
11 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Miceal 5/18/2021 3:16:25 PM (No. 789700)
Impeach, remove, and put in prison...
11 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
leonardo 5/18/2021 3:32:01 PM (No. 789713)
Ya think the decision might have been different if she had blocked the street that his home's driveway fed onto? Not a chance.
10 people like this.
Per the article:
But the state law that makes it illegal to impede highways requires police and prosecutors to show that traffic was disrupted “without legal privilege” — suggesting an illegal, content-based threshold, the judge said. “The vagueness of ‘legal privilege’ makes the statute and the obstruction to be susceptible to arbitrary and selective enforcement,” Sletta wrote.
This, because some stop-the-steal protesters were not cited under similar circumstances. I still don't buy it. Interrupting traffic on an interstate highway does not lend itself to nuance.
8 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
TLCary 5/18/2021 3:44:46 PM (No. 789727)
#7 “The vagueness of ‘legal privilege’ makes the statute and the obstruction to be susceptible to arbitrary and selective enforcement,” The irony as the judge exercises arbitrary and selective enforcement to protect BLM. Legal Privilege means, having a permit for a parade. The argument that the law is being used in a politically biased manner is nonsense as there were not other political groups blocking traffic that weren't charged. No, the Judge let them go because they were BLM, and is guilty of exactly what he claim he objects to.
16 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
RedWhite&Blue2 5/18/2021 3:44:46 PM (No. 789728)
“The gazette”?
They seem to be happy about this
Well I’m not.....
More Marxism..More coddling
8 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
seamusm 5/18/2021 3:45:54 PM (No. 789729)
The judge needs to have his fanny tossed into the middle of the interstate.
7 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
DVC 5/18/2021 4:10:40 PM (No. 789741)
Sorry, #7, I read the article and the judge's ruling is muddled, and unlikely to be followed by other judges. I wasn't impressed at all with the reasoning. The state legislature passed a law against doing what she did. The woman should be punished, and apparently is likely to have this judge's ruling overturned, and get punished.
Frankly, using their snowplows to clear these protester's vehicles from the highway, seriously damaging them in the process, would be a good lesson for these obnoxious pukes who imagine that their damned political opinion is so important that it gives them the right to mess up other people's schedules.
You can SPEAK, but you have no right to block the highways. That is NOT "speech", it is a criminal act.
17 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
LanceLink1 5/18/2021 4:12:49 PM (No. 789743)
Meanwhile Jan 6th "rioters" suffer in DC jails with their Constitutional rights being denied. C'mon man!
14 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Louieeferg 5/18/2021 4:15:32 PM (No. 789745)
That reasoning should also make it ok to yell fire in a crowded theatre.
8 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
MickTurn 5/18/2021 4:30:10 PM (No. 789754)
I guess then it's free speech to throw a huge net over these thugs and drag them for a ride...
8 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
red1066 5/18/2021 5:10:41 PM (No. 789789)
Blocking a highway isn't free speech. Standing along side a highway holding a sign is free speech.
10 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
bighambone 5/18/2021 6:06:28 PM (No. 789829)
The practical effect of this ruling, if it is not overturned on appeal, will be some moron protestor stepping out onto the interstate in front of an 18 wheeler and getting ground into mush.
6 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Strike3 5/18/2021 7:23:41 PM (No. 789898)
Run the beech over. End of problem.
4 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
kono 5/18/2021 7:35:05 PM (No. 789904)
The Left, who keep getting confused about the difference between male and female, also get confused about the difference between action and speech. To them action is speech (and guaranteed free), while speech is action (and able to be restricted by law).
4 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
web 5/18/2021 8:46:33 PM (No. 789938)
My Free Speech comment to Molly would be to run her over. It would be my expression of my opinion that children should not play in the road, as we were taught as children. Remember, Everything I Need to Know I learned in Kindergarten? Molly and other protesters have the right to protest and say whatever they like, but not in the street or the Interstate. I have the right to unimpeded access to the roads, since my taxpayers dollars paid for it. I doubt that Molly has ever paid a dime in taxes in her life.
4 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
hershey 5/18/2021 9:28:58 PM (No. 789971)
And if she would have gotten run over, the driver would be in jail, never mind HIS free speech rights...too many damned liberals fleeing Kalifornia and settling in Colorado...
4 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
rytwng 5/18/2021 10:26:31 PM (No. 790008)
Run over these BLM thugs. There could lots of funerals.
1 person likes this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 5/19/2021 6:36:06 AM (No. 790175)
Where do we get such legal "talent?"
1 person likes this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
local500 5/19/2021 8:35:34 PM (No. 791028)
Free speech does not give you the right to disrupt the life of others.
If you blocked an ambulance from reaching a person who could have been seriously hurt or even worse because you are too selfish and to stupid and entitled, then you should be held accountable for your actions.
3 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Christopher L"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Using this Judge’s reasoning it now perfectly legal to trespass ( being somewhere you are not legally allowed to be) as long as it’s part of a protest. I’m sure his next ruling will be that theft ( looting ) is perfectly legal as long as it’s part of a protest. Arson will be perfectly legal as long as it’s part of a protest. The story mentions a BLM protester that pulled a gun while blocking a street and that his case will be effected by this ruling. So I guess threatening someone with a gun will be perfectly legal too as long as it’s part of a protest. This is nuts !