June 29, 2026
"I’m pleased that the D.C. police recognize their part in violating my rights."
Said Sam O’Hara, quote in "Man who played Star Wars music at National Guard members receives settlement/The ACLU announced it had reached a financial agreement with the D.C. government and four of its officers, resolving part of the case" (WaPo)(gift link).
Posts
36 comments:
Never forget the collective rage fueled left have every right to group together with soros funding - as anti-ICE agents.
The left are allowed to harass police. The left are allowed to de-fund the police. (and re-fill with obedient Soviets)
Never forget the left are encouraged to throw fire bombs at Tesla dealerships.
"Hi - I'm a privileged white gay man of the left, and I am so offended that National Guardsmen and women would dare to make life better for the black communities hardest hit by crime in DC" ... "I mean, like, It's just so unserious to clean up crime here."
So another "sue and settle" staged by the left's ACLU and the left led DC government. Will wonders never cease
I wonder how many muggings his gay ass has been spared by the NG presence.
This is something the smarmy liberals on the wealthy Upper East Side of Milwaukee would do.
I have no problem with the NG patrolling there. And I'm pretty sure that I would find this guy to be an insufferable dick. But I'm certainly on his side on this. Glad he won against the PD for violating his 1A rights.
So when our betters take over as they likely will at some point, will we be allowed to play "Yakety Sax" to accompany their ministrations? And if we do and they throw our asses in stir, will the ACLU be there for us?
The staffers that work for the ACLU ae told to say they are "non-partisan"
LOL.
Wasn’t clear what the decibel level of his “speech” was. If it violated noise ordinances I’m all for him being arrested. Otherwise just ignore him.
Even his picture is screaming that he's insufferable. He has First Amendment rights just like everyone else, but there's no amendment stating that you have the right to be an insufferable prick without consequence. It could be argued that he was stalking and harassing the troops.
'He works in the hospitality industry and said the Guard presence has hurt that sector. ' Well, he's saying something that nobody else has said, that I have seen. As far as I have read, people are amazed and grateful that they can venture out on DC streets again, that the homeless have been rousted, and that opportunistic street crime has been virtually eliminated. Then such commenters follow up by reinforcing that they're not Trump voters. Even the Mayor.
His suit against the Guard should be dismissed, they were just enjoying their First Amendment right to call a cop. It's protected speech.
…the ‘DC government’? Oh yes…sue and settle back in favor once again…
“The government can restrict time, place, and manner of expression, and entirely prohibit specific categories of speech—such as incitement, true threats, defamation, obscenity, and fraud.” …so says the ACLU. Apparently just not ‘THIS’ government…
So, harassment is cordial, and cordial is harassment, selectively. #HateLovesAbortion
…suggest an experiment: pull this shit on any government actor in DC on the side of the left. Observe how quickly government enforcers inflict pain on you…
It seems like there is a functional distinction between "speech" and "harassment" or "interference" with the officers. playing it once is speech. Following them and playing it constantly is interference.
It is worrisome that some of these boots on the ground lack common sense.
I do strongly agree that this was, and is, a first amendment issue. I understand that others disagree (we all have that right, of course!), but I think the first amendment DOES allow us to be "insufferable pricks" without legal (i.e. government) consequences. Isn't that part of its point? Isn't that why we, all of us, need that 1st Amendment protection? Representatives and agents of our government (which include guardsmen, police etc.) may get irritated, but that's really not salient to the point. It's the price we pay for being a free-speech country.
I have to say, I take a very dim view of protests and demonstrations generally, in that I think so many of them are pointless. But I support the rights of people to engage in them anyway.
What I emphatically do NOT support is violence of any kind, looting, property destruction, vandalism, mass littering, blocking of highways and other actual threats to public safety (annoyance doesn't count), and other like activities. I do feel these things should not be overlooked and, where warranted and with due process, that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law in the appropriate jurisdictions.
Honestly, as protests go? Playing one of the Star War themes seems to be pretty innocuous. Annoyance does not trump free speech and the right to dissent. Those are core constitutional protections.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Lori (reader_iam)
[start virtual italics]Following them and playing it constantly is interference.[end virtual italics]
I respectfully but strongly disagree with this.
Regards,
Lori (reader_iam)
insuperable pricks = = = = = only allowed on the left.
I'm a strong supporter of the police as a general rule. But they have to know that as public servants and public employees acting in the name of the public, scrutiny comes with the territory. If citizens want to follow them down the street, even film them, then this is part of transparency. It's the price paid, and I don't understand why our public servants don't get this, in those instances when they don't. I share rrsafety's concern, above.
OBVIOUSLY, there are exceptions. I'm not going to take up space delineating them, because I think they're pretty, well, obvious. A guy following a group of guards and playing one of the Star Wars themes does not fall into that category, or at least didn't in this instance.
Regards,
Lori (reader_iam)
The guardsmen ought to have been flattered by O'Hara's puerile stunt. After all, what are those ragtag rebels after? What's their goal? Chaos? Anarchy? A borderless "republic" full of undocumented extra-galactic riff-raff, thieves, perverts, and drug smugglers is apparently just fine and dandy with those midichlorian-infested Jedi cultists. An increased stormtrooper presence on the streets of those wretched hives of scum and villainy should be welcomed by all right-thinking Imperial citizens.
[start virtual italics] insuperable pricks = = = = = only allowed on the left.[end virtual italics]
No, Peachy+2, that should NOT be the way that it works. That should be the case for each and every one of us, in my strongly held opinion about that. It's a problem in every instance that when there is a divergence from that important right.
I'm addressing the above-captioned comment only to make it absolutely crystal clear that I, personally, DO NOT believe that statement and am in NO WAY implying otherwise. I absolutely believe the same standard should apply to everyone.
If another citizen wants to follow Star Wars guy while he's following whatever government agents and decide to play some sort of mocking music, have at it! And Star Wars guy should have to just lump it.
Regards,
Lori (reader_iam)
What I am drawing attention to, is that he is suing the national guard for calling the cops on him. One can argue that it was wrong to put him in handcuffs. One can also argue that he was interfering with their patrol. It comes down to nuance. If they're on patrol, and this dope is blaring out the Imperial March, then this is intended as a distraction, not a protest. Note that he is the only one saying it wasn't loud. I would not grant that without challenge. What does the guard say? They are not represented on that, and yet they're being sued for making a phone call.
I'm a staunchly ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" kind of gal.
Thank you, Evelyn Beatrice Hall!
Regards,
Lori (reader_iam)
Equal treatment of public and private parties under the law.
Adjacent to "our violence is speech and your speech is violence"
So, you can play interruptive loud music while politicians engage in "live shot" media opportunities outside the Capitol? Good to know.
Just listening to the video I get 100 dba on my sound meter, these people, including assholes with the hand amplified speakers, are damaging people’s hearing and they should be sued. The first amendment is not a pass to injure people.
Corporations that emit chemicals and noise are heavily punished and individuals we should be held to the same standards.
In America, you have the right to be an a-hole, but that doesn't mean you have to use it.
Cities and towns do have ordinances against playing music too loud without a permit. Are those overridden because one claims one is making some kind of political point? Is there any point at which the disturbance caused overrides the alleged political purpose of the event?
Let me know when the ACLU starts defending Reckless Ben. Until then, this was just graft to be made.
What if NG could drop CONE OF SILENCE over him?
Isn't STAR WARS as FREEDOM FIGHTERS as much hoax as CAGW
From comment dissension above looks like wrong parties were accorded standing? In a judicial farce!!
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: DON'T USE ITALICS.