Better in their words…

U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney therefore dismissed charges against two men from the “white nationalist” Rise Above Movement (RAM) who violently clashed with members of the far-left group Antifa at three Southern California pro-Trump events in 2017.

In his 35-page order, the judge stressed the importance of equal protection under the law. He said that although the two men may have been involved in violent acts, prosecutors were wrong to exclusively target them without also pursuing charges against Antifa members implicated in similar violent actions at political events.

The judge said the fundamental principles of the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly are the “bedrock” of the United States. Protecting these rights is not always easy, he said, since sometimes, people use that right to “spread vitriolic and hateful ideas and beliefs.”

“While Defendants openly promoted ideas the Court finds reprehensible, and likely committed violence for which they deserve to be prosecuted, this case is about something more important. It is about upholding the free speech and assembly rights guaranteed to all of us,” Judge Carney wrote.

Prosecutors charged the two men, Robert Rundo, founder of RAM, and Robert Boman, one of the group’s members, under a federal anti-riot statute in 2018.

The men were accused of engaging in acts of violence at pro-Trump events in Southern California, specifically in Huntington Beach, Berkeley, and San Bernardino.

With the matter back in the district court, Mr. Rundo and Mr. Boman filed two motions to dismiss the case, arguing that the use of the Anti-Riot Act was unconstitutionally vague and that they were selectively prosecuted and not given equal treatment under the law.

Judge Carney rejected the first motion, asserting that the alleged conduct of the men clearly falls within the scope of the Anti-Riot Act.

“Though there may be questions in another case as to what constitutes a violation of the Anti-Riot Act, this is not that case,” he wrote. “Defendants clearly used a facility of interstate commerce shortly before they engaged in riotous activity as proscribed by the Anti-Riot Act.”

However, the judge agreed with their second motion’s argument regarding selective prosecution and the violation of equal protection rights. He raised constitutional concerns about the government’s use of the Anti-Riot Act to prosecute the RAM members but not the Antifa members who engaged in comparable violent acts.

Mr. Rundo and Mr. Boman argued in their motion that the U.S. government targeted them for their speech and beliefs—and not Antifa and other far-left groups—in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.

The judge found that the defendants met the high bar of proving that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated.

“Members of Antifa and related far-left groups attended the political rallies and physically assaulted and injured innocent civilians, many of whom were supporters of President Trump and were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. Nonetheless, the government did not use the Anti-Riot Act to prosecute any members of Antifa or related far-left groups,” the judge wrote.

He noted that Antifa and other far-left groups engaged in “worse conduct” than RAM members and even “instigated much of the violence” that broke out in order to silence the protected speech of Trump supporters, yet the government chose to not prosecute Antifa members for the same violent acts alleged against the defendants.

“That is constitutionally impermissible,” Judge Carney wrote. “The government cannot prosecute RAM members such as Defendants while ignoring the violence of members of Antifa and related far-left groups because RAM engaged in what the government and many believe is more offensive speech.”

In his order, the judge highlighted the complexity of protecting free speech that some may not like during divisive times. He argued that the solution is not for the government to “single out and punish the speech that it and many in the country understandably find repugnant.”

The judge referenced the historical legal perspective of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who asserted nearly 100 years ago that combating dangerous speech requires “more speech, not enforced silence.”

“The government remains free to prosecute those, like Defendants, who allegedly use violence to suppress First Amendment rights. But it cannot ignore others, equally culpable, because Defendants’ speech and beliefs are more offensive. The Constitution forbids such selective prosecution,” Judge Carney wrote.