Category: News Feeds

In
the
final
sprint
before
election
day,
Donald
Trump
is
still
finding
time
for
his
second
favorite
hobby.

No, not

fantasizing
on
television
about
his
enemies
getting
executed
by
firing
squad.
After
golf,
Trump’s
favorite
thing
in
the
world
is
filing
frivolous
lawsuits.
Nothing
makes
this
man
happier
than

suing
the
Pulitzer
Prize
board
for
defamation.
Or

suing
Facebook
for
tortious
deplatforming.
Or

suing
Hillary
Clinton
for
doing
the
RICO
to
him.

And
Trump
definitely

had
the
time
yesterday,
filing
a

complaint
against
CBS
for
daring
to
edit
an
interview
with
Kamala
Harris
on
its
October
5
news
show

60
Minutes.
Trump,
whose
constant
stream
of
invective
and
verbal
diarrhea
is
routinely
“sanewashed”
by
the
press,
was
incensed
that
Harris’s
more
nuanced
answer
on
the
war
in
Gaza
was
truncated
during
the
original
broadcast.
On
Truth
Social,
he
screamed
that
CBS’s
non-existent
broadcast
license
should
be
revoked.

“RELEASE
THE
TAPES
FOR
THE
GOOD
OF
AMERICA,”
he
continued
menacingly.
“We
can
do
it
the
nice
way,
or
the
hard
way!”

But
apparently
CBS
refused
to
play
ball,
and
so
Trump
had
to
do…
whatever
the
hell
this
is.

The
former
president
is
a
Florida
resident,
and
CBS
is
headquartered
in
New
York.
So
naturally
the
trollsuit
was
filed
in
Texas,
specifically
the
Amarillo
division
of
the
Northern
District,
where
it
was
guaranteed
to
draw
Trump’s
handpicked
viper,
Judge
Matthew
Kacsmaryk.
Kacsmaryk
famously
reversed
the
2000
authorization
for
mifepristone,
the
drug
relied
upon
for
medication
abortions,
because
sometimes
women
come
into
the
emergency
rooms
bleeding
out
of
their
whatevers,
and
it
makes
anti-choice
doctors
feel
icky.

“Venue
is
proper
in
this
district
under
28
U.S.C.
§1391(b)(2)
and
(b)(3)
because
a
substantial
part
of
the
events
or
omissions
giving
rise
to
President
Trump’s
claims
occurred
in
this
District
by
virtue
of
the
Interview
being
transmitted
by
CBS
into
this
District
(and
elsewhere)
and
because
CBS
is
subject
to
this
Court’s
personal
jurisdiction
with
respect
to
this
action,”
Trump’s
lawyers
wrote
glibly.

The
complaint
alleges
that
CBS
violated
Texas’s
Deceptive
Trade
Practices-Consumer
Protection
Act
by
failing
to
“provide
honest
services
by
engaging
in
false,
misleading,
deceptive,
and,
therefore,
unconscionable
and
detrimental
news
distortion.”

But
how
does
a
national
news
broadcast,
which
enjoys
the
highest
level
of
First
Amendment
protection,
violate
a
state
law
meant
to
shield
Meemaw
from
unlicensed
roofing
contractors?

President
Trump
is
a
“consumer”
within
the
meaning
of
the
DTPA,
since
he
is
an
individual
who
sought
and
received
CBS’s
broadcast
services.
Moreover,
as
the
leading
presidential
candidate,
President
Trump
will
be
evaluated
by
the
Texas
electorate
–
and
the
electorate
in
all
states—on
November
5,
2024.
As
such,
President
Trump
stands
in
the
shoes
of
each
Texas
voter
entitled
to
the
honest
services
expected
from
CBS-owned
and
affiliated
television
stations
in
Texas.

Well,
obviously.

The
complaint
is
full
of
string
cites,
not
to
federal
or
state
cases,
but
to
tweets
by
Fox
News
anchors
and
Breitbart
articles,
as
well
as
an
FCC
complaint
filed
by
Trump’s
allies.
There
are
pages
and
pages
of
indignant
snorting
about
“Kamala’s
‘word
salad’
weakness.”
This
indulgent
hackery
is
perhaps
unsurprising
from
Daniel
Epstein,
the
lawyer
who

bragged
to
Maria
Bartiromo
that
Trump
was
going
to
sue
the
DOJ
for
$100
million
plus
punitive
damages
for
the
Mar-a-Lago
raid,
seemingly
unaware
that
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
specifically
bars
punitive
damages.
Indeed
Trump,
who
is
not
the
president,
is
referred
to
throughout
as
“President
Trump.”
Vice
President
Harris
is
referred
to
as
“Kamala.”

Trump,
whose
entire
campaign
apparatus
including
PACs,
raised
just
over
a
billion
dollars
during
the
entire
electoral
cycle,
demands
that
CBS
pay
him
$10
billion
because
one
interview
a
month
before
the
campaign

“damaged
President
Trump’s
fundraising
and
support
values
by
several
billions
of
dollars,
particularly
in
Texas.” 

A
stickler
might
note
that
the
putative
billions
in
lost
donations
would
have
accrued
to
the
campaign
itself,
not
to
Trump
personally.
And
that
stickler
might
also
note
that
the
DTPA
specifically
excludes
businesses
with
more
than
$25
million
of
assets
from
recovery.
But
presumably
the
jurisdiction,
venue,
and
First
Amendment
issues
will
doom
this
clunker
before
picayune
issues
of
state
law
come
into
play.

On
the
other
hand,
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
is
allowing
Twitter
to
get
discovery
on
Media
Matters
in
Fort
Worth,
so…
who
TF
knows.

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

There
are
many
different
and
exciting
ways
to
rank
law
firms.
How
prestigious
are
they?
How
much
money
are
they
making?
How
much
do
partners
earn?
How
much
are
associates
earning
in
cash
compensation?
How
big
are
they?

Yes,
size
matters,
and
because
the
legal
profession
is
obsessed
with
every
single
measurable
and
quantifiable
factor
law
firms
have
to
offer,
there’s
obviously
a
ranking
for
that.

So,
which
Biglaw
firm
is
the
biggest
in
the
European
Union?

Law.com
International
recently
released
the

EU
Top
30,
its
inaugural
ranking
of
the
largest
law
firms
in
the
European
Union
covering
the
current
calendar
year.
If
you’ve
ever
wondered
about
precise
law
firm
headcounts,
this
is
the
ranking
for
you.

These
are
the
10
largest
law
firms
in
the
EU,
according
to
Law.com
International:

1. CMS:
   2,869
   lawyers
2. DLA
   Piper:
   1,750
   lawyers
3. Hogan
   Lovells:
   1,659
   lawyers
4. Freshfields:
   1,314
   lawyers
5. Garrigues:
   1,273
   lawyers
6. Baker
   McKenzie:
   1,266
   lawyers
7. Linklaters:
   1,254
   lawyers
8. A&O
   Shearman:
   1,201
   lawyers
9. Clifford
   Chance:
   1,147
   lawyers
10. Bird
    &
    Bird:
    1,069
    lawyers

Three
of
the
Top
10
are
U.S.-based
firms
(and
No.
8
is
a
newly
merged
megafirm,
with
one
legacy
firm
based
in
the
U.S.).
Click

here
to
see
the
full
list
of
the
30
largest
law
firms
in
Europe.

Congratulations
to
all
of
these
firms
for
putting
the
“big”
in
Biglaw!

The
2024
EU
Top
30:
Ranking
the
Largest
Law
Firms
in
the
European
Union
by
Headcount
[Law.com
International]

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
a
series
providing
a
comprehensive
guide
to
networking
at
conferences. Read
the
previous
installment
here. 

In
this
part
of
our
“Conquering
Conferences”
series,
we
focus
on
embracing
the
small
victories
and
soothing
the
inevitable
nerves
of
networking.

As
the
final
song
plays
in
our
metaphorical
ballroom,
let’s
reflect
on
the
steps
taken
and
the
rhythm
found.

Embracing
Small
Wins 

Conferences,
much
like
a
high
school
dance,
can
stir
a
whirlpool
of
emotions,
including
anxiety
and
nervousness.

But
just
like
in
any
dance,
it’s
the
small
steps
and
the
individual
moments
that
create
the
most
memorable
experiences.

Celebrating
Every
Step

• 
  Each
  interaction,
  whether
  it’s
  a
  brief
  chat
  or
  a
  longer
  discussion,
  is
  a
  step
  forward
  in
  the
  dance
  of
  networking.
  Acknowledge
  these
  moments
  as
  successes
  in
  their
  own
  right.
• 
  Just
  like
  learning
  a
  dance
  routine,
  the
  first
  steps
  are
  often
  the
  hardest.
  Give
  yourself
  credit
  for
  every
  attempt
  to
  connect,
  no
  matter
  the
  outcome.

Keeping
the
Rhythm
Light

• 
  Networking
  is
  not
  about
  flawless
  performances
  or
  winning
  a
  popularity
  contest.
  It’s
  about
  finding
  your
  own
  rhythm
  and
  enjoying
  the
  process
  of
  meeting
  new
  people.
• 
  If
  the
  dance
  floor
  of
  networking
  feels
  overwhelming,
  remember
  it’s
  okay
  to
  take
  a
  break.
  Step
  aside,
  catch
  your
  breath,
  and
  rejoin
  when
  you’re
  ready.

Soothing
the
Stage
Fright

• 
  Feelings
  of
  anxiety
  are
  common
  in
  these
  settings.
  Use
  calming
  techniques
  like
  deep
  breathing
  or
  focusing
  on
  the
  present
  moment
  to
  steady
  your
  nerves.
• 
  Set
  manageable
  goals
  for
  yourself.
  Whether
  it’s
  initiating
  a
  conversation
  with
  at
  least
  three
  people
  or
  simply
  attending
  a
  particular
  session,
  these
  small
  objectives
  can
  make
  the
  overall
  experience
  more
  rewarding
  and
  less
  daunting.

Looking
Back
on
Your
Performance

• 
  After
  the
  conference,
  reflect
  on
  your
  interactions.
  Each
  one
  is
  a
  learning
  opportunity
  and
  a
  step
  toward
  becoming
  more
  at
  ease
  in
  networking
  scenarios.
• 
  Celebrate
  the
  connections
  you
  made,
  no
  matter
  how
  small.
  Networking
  is
  a
  skill
  that
  improves
  with
  practice,
  and
  every
  conference
  is
  a
  chance
  to
  refine
  your
  approach
  and
  build
  confidence.

Having
celebrated
our
small
wins
and
navigated
the
emotional
landscape
of
networking,
it’s
time
to
look
at
some
common
missteps
to
avoid.
Next
up,
we’ll
add
a
touch
of
humor
to
our
series
by
exploring
a
few
networking
faux
pas.

Enjoying
Small
Wins

✔️ Recognize
and
celebrate
each
interaction,
no
matter
how
brief.
✔️ Practice
calming
techniques
to
manage
anxiety
and
nervousness.
✔️ Set
achievable
goals
for
networking
and
acknowledge
your
efforts.
✔️ Reflect
on
your
experiences
and
learn
from
them,
building
confidence
over
time.

Sejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.  

The
longest
criminal
trial
in
Georgia’s
history
has
finally
come
to
a
close.
Jeffrey
Williams,
known
to
most
as
Young
Thug,
made
a
non-negotiated
plea
in
his
RICO
case.
After
Williams’s
lawyers
and
the
goofballs
who
built
a
weak
case
on
rap
lyrics
and
several
hostile
witnesses
couldn’t
come
to
an
agreement
on
what
his
sentencing
should
be,
the
decision
was
given
to
Judge
Whitaker
to
decide.

NBC
News
has
coverage:

Whitaker
sentenced
him
to
40
years
that
would
have
forced
him
to
serve
five
years
in
prison,
but
she
commuted
it
to
time
served.
In
addition,
he
must
complete
15
years
of
probation,
which
can
result
in
20
years
to
be
served
in
custody
if
probation
is
not
successful.

She
put
several
restrictions
on
him,
including
barring
travel
in
metro
Atlanta
and
no
contact
with
affiliated
gang
members,
and
said
he
must
perform
community
service,
including
doing
presentations
to
community
groups
and
children
against
gang
violence.

There
are
a
couple
of
caveats
to
the
no
contact
rule
—
Thugger
can
still
keep
in
touch
with
his
brother
and
recording
artist
Gunna.
Thank
God
for
the
latter;
whatever
album
comes
after
this
extended
sham
of
a
trial
will
be
highly
anticipated.
It
will
also
be
highly
scrutinized.
Not
just
by
Love’s
office
hoping
that
they
can
get
a
second
bite
by
accusing
his
lyrics
of
having
gang
ties,
but
also
by
his
fans.
Jeffrey
is
a
versatile
musician,
but
it
is
unclear
how
drastically
the
content
of
his
art
will
have
to
change
to
keep
in
line
with
his
parole
conditions
and
his
promise
to
be
more
careful
with
the
content
he
puts
out
in
the
world.

There
is
a
lot
to
process
here. 
Fifteen
years
of
probation
is
a
hell
of
a
sword
over
your
head,
but
it
is
worlds
better
than
the

25
years
in
prison
and
20
years
of
probation
the
prosecution
wanted.
But
bracketing
that
for
the
moment,

so
much
happened
over
the
last
two
and
a
half
years.
After
Jeffrey
sees
his
family
and
Brian
Steel
gets
his
flowers,
we’re
going
to
have
to
talk
about
all
of
the

stripper
chicken,

mid-court
drug
deals,
and

shitty
lyrical
hermeneutics
that
went
down
here.
It
was

so
bad.
At
one
point,
the
state

tried
to
pin
murderous
intent
on
Jeffrey
over
Nicki
Minaj’s
lyrics!

Thankfully,
this
saga
is
over.
Keep
your
nose
clean,
Mr.
Thugger.
Just
don’t
wipe
it
in
public
for
the
next
15
years.

Earlier:

Desperate
For
Evidence,
Prosecutors
Will
Use
Young
Thug
Lyrics
In
Trial

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“Friend
bought
you
a
ticket
to
the
big
game?
You
still
have
to
arbitrate,
says
US
appeals
court.” Alison
Frankel’s
“On
the
Case”
from
Reuters
has this
post.

“Walmart
Lands
Supreme
Court
Litigator
as
Lead
Appellate
Counsel;
Charles
Dameron
recruited
after
six
years
in
private
practice;
Retail
giant
adds
former
Supreme
Court
lawyer
to
legal
team”: Brian
Baxter
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report (subscription
required
for
full
access).

“Abortion
Rights
Are
on
Every
Swing-State
Ballot
Come
Tuesday”: Law
professors David
S.
Cohen, Greer
Donley,
and Rachel
Rebouche have this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.

“‘You
should
expect
bones’:
How
chicken
wings
became
part
of
the
2024
Ohio
Supreme
Court
race;
Democratic
candidates
for
Ohio
Supreme
Court
are
citing
a
ruling
that
made
national
headlines
for
explaining
why
boneless
wings
can
have
bones.” Frank
W.
Lewis
of
Signal
Cleveland
has this
report.

“Election
Lawsuits
Are
Piling
Up.
How
Worried
Should
You
Be?
Nearly
200
voting-related
cases
have
churned
ahead
this
year.
But
not
all
of
them
will
make
a
difference.” Law
professor Noah
Feldman has this
essay online
at
Bloomberg
Opinion.

“What
we
know
about
Trump,
Harris,
the
Supreme
Court
and
federal
judges;
Whoever
wins
the
White
House
in
November
will
face
a
closely
divided
Senate
and,
at
least
at
first,
relatively
few
judicial
vacancies”: Justin
Jouvenal
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.

Houston-founded
firm
Vinson
&
Elkins
is
expanding
its
U.S.
footprint
by
opening
another
office,
this
time
in
the
Mountain
West
region
of
the
country.
The
firm
—
which
brought
in
$1,003,453,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
54
on
the
Am
Law
100
—
is
welcoming
a
new
team
of
lawyers
in
Denver,
who
will
focus
on
M&A,
securities,
tax
equity,
and
project
finance
transactions.
Vinson
is
now
the

second
Texas-founded
Am
Law
100
firm
to
open
a
Denver
office.

The
firm’s
Denver
office
will
officially
open
its
doors
today,
with
partners

Sarah
Morgan,

Mike
Joyce,
and

Ramey
Layne
leading
the
way.
Morgan,
who
co-heads
Vinson’s
Capital
Markets
and
Mergers
&
Acquisitions
Practice
Group,
will
serve
as
the
new
office’s
managing
partner.

Denver
is
the
firm’s
thirteenth
office,
and
Morgan
offered
the
following

comments
to
mark
the
occasion:

“Denver
offers
a
central
U.S.
location
with
easy
access
to
both
coasts
and
Texas,
making
the
city
a
strategic
market
for
companies
with
national
and
international
business
operations,”
Morgan
said.
“The
city’s
thriving
business
ecosystem,
coupled
with
a
robust
legal
talent
pool,
presents
numerous
opportunities
for
us
to
expand
on
our
established
local
client
base
and
attract
top-flight
lawyers
to
the
firm.”

Joyce,
who
co-heads
the
firm’s
Energy
Transactions
and
Projects
Practice
Group,
said
that
the
firm’s
“core
strengths
representing
corporate
clients
in
complex
and
cutting-edge
transactions
mesh
perfectly
with
the
Denver
market,
which
is
a
hub
for
innovation
in
energy
and
other
industrial
sectors.”

The
firm
plans
to
hire
additional
partners
and
associates
in
the
new
Denver
office,
and
Layne,
a
member
of
the
firm’s
Capital
Markets
practice,
said
of
prospective
new
hires,
“We
look
forward
to
growing
our
office
and
attracting
local
lawyers
who
want
to
contribute
to
our
success
by
working
with
some
of
the
world’s
leading
clients
that
shape
industries
and
drive
international
business.”

Congratulations
to
Vinson
&
Elkins
on
its
new
office.
Best
wishes
for
continued
success!

Vinson
&
Elkins
to
Open
Denver
Office
[Vinson
&
Elkins]

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

When
the
government
shuts
down
a
protest
because
both
protesters
and
counter-protesters
are
physically
attacking
each
other,
it’s
not
a
“heckler’s
veto.”
It’s
just
common
sense,
even
though
there
was
very
little
of
that
on
display
during
the
protest,
nor
during
law
enforcement’s
belated
response
to
the
violent
confrontation.

But
Warren
Balogh
thinks
only his rights
were violated
during
this
protest
in
Charlottesville,
Virginia.
He
should
have
known
better.
After
all,
the
organizer
of
the
“Unite
the
Right”
protest,
Jason
Kessler,
already
tried
pursuing
this
novel
theory
in
court
after
cops
dispersed
everyone
in
attendance
—
protesters
and
counter-protesters
—
after
it
devolved
into
a
steady
series
of
physical
altercations
between
attendees.
And
he
lost.

The
same
goes
for
Balogh,
who
chose
to
represent
himself
in
this
civil
rights
lawsuit
—
one
that
claims
his
First
Amendment
rights
were
violated
when
the
Charlottesville
PD
ordered everyone to
disperse
following
several
violent
confrontations
(and
the
killing
of
a
counter-protester
by
a
white
nationalist
who
deliberately
drove
his
car
into
a
crowd).

The
Fourth
Circuit
doesn’t
see
anything
its
likes
in
Balogh’s
arguments,
which
mirror
Kessler’s
failed
attempt
to
claim
his
rights
were
violated
in
the
same
way
at
the
same
protest.
Here’s
the
only
place
Balogh
succeeds
where
Kessler
failed:
he
managed
to
secure
precedent
that
works
against
him.
From
the
opening
of
the
Fourth
Circuit
Appeals
Court decision [PDF]:

This
appeal
asks
a
straightforward
legal
question:
does
the
First
Amendment
protect
speech
amid
violence?
More
specifically,
does
the
First
Amendment
obligate
police
officers
to
protect
the
constitutional
rights
of
protesters
amid
violence?
We’ve
already
suggested
that
the
answer
is
no.
Kessler
v.
City
of
Charlottesville,
No.
20-1704,
2022
WL
17985704,
at
*1
(4th
Cir.
Dec.
29,
2022)
(per
curiam).
We
say
so
explicitly
today.

When
the
government
decides
it’s
not
going
to
target
anyone’s
speech
but
just
allow
citizens
to
(in
this
case, literally)
fight
it
out
until
it
can’t
ignore
the
violence
any
longer,
it’s
not
suppressing
speech.
It’s
suppressing
violence.
And
the
Fourth
isn’t
willing
to
pretend
the
ultimate
outcome
of
this
clash
between
far-right
extremists
and
Antifa
(which,
as
far-right
activists know but
will
never acknowledge,
refers
to
a
loose
association
of
people
with
an anti-fascist agenda)
violated
Balogh’s
rights,
no
matter
how
creative
his
legal
sales
pitch.

The
rally
erupted
into
violence
between
protesters
(including
Balogh)
and
counterprotesters,
effectively
cutting
off
everyone’s
speech
and
ultimately
leading
to
multiple
injuries,
widespread
property
damage,
and
one
death.
Despite
the
mayhem,
law
enforcement
followed
Chief
Thomas’s
directive
not
to
intervene
and
did
little
to
interrupt
the
participants’
“mutual
combat.”

Balogh
would
have
us
seize
on
these
facts
to
transform
the
First
Amendment
from
a
shield
to
guard
against
invasive
speech
regulations
into
a
sword
to
wield
against
violent
speech
disruptions.
We
decline
to
forge
such
a
weapon,
and
instead
affirm
the
district
court’s
judgment
dismissing
the
complaint.

Balogh
hoped
to
salvage
his
(nonexistent)
First
Amendment
case
by
dragging
along
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
for
the
ride.
But
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
deals
with
due
process
violations,
not
speech
suppression
or
even
retaliatory
arrests
prompted
by
an
individual’s
speech.
The
Fourteenth
has
nothing
to
do
with
this
at
all…
ever,
as
the
court
explains:

Neither
we
nor,
seemingly,
any
other
court
has
ever
applied
this
Fourteenth
Amendment
exception
to
a
First
Amendment
claim.
Moreover,
and
as
the
district
court
explained
in
Kessler,
“the
First
Amendment
merely
guarantees
that
the
state
will
not
suppress
one’s
speech
.
.
.
[,]
[i]t
does
not
guarantee
that
the
state
will
protect
individuals
when
private
parties
seek
to
suppress
it.”

Then
it
goes
after
the
heart
of
Balogh’s
comparatively
better-formed
First
Amendment
arguments,
leading
off
with
a
sentence
I
wished I’d written:

Balogh’s
second
argument
invoking
the
heckler’s
veto
has
more
legs,
but
ultimately,
none
to
stand
on.

Balogh
cites
a case
covered
here
at
Techdirt in
hopes
of
talking
the
Fourth
Circuit
into
siding
with
him.
That
case
— Meinecke
v.
City
of
Seattle —
dealt
with
a
self-proclaimed
“street
preacher”
who
read
Bible
passages
while
attending
abortion
rallies
and
an
LGBTQ
pride
festival.
Attendees
of
these
events
verbally
and
physically
attacked
Matthew
Meinecke
in
response
to
his
Bible
reading.
Officers
policing
these
events
decided
to
shut
down
Meinecke’s
speech
—
first
by
ordering
him
to
leave
and
then
by
arresting
him
when
he
refused
to
do
so”
—
seemingly
because
they
thought
it
would
be
easier
to
silence
the
speech
than
handle
the
violence
directed
towards
Meinecke.
In
that
case,
the
government
sided
with
hecklers
and
allowed
its
veto
to
silence
Meinecke’s
speech.

But
that’s
not
what
happened
here.
In
this
case,
both
sets
of
protesters
violently
clashed
with each
other.
And
when
the
PD
finally
got
permission
to
do
something
by
the
chief,
the
entire
thing
was
shut
down,
with
both
protesters
and
counter-protesters
being
removed
from
the
scene.
And
even
Balogh
admitted
the
“Unite
the
Right”
group
fully
expected
to
be
confronted
by
Antifa
counter-protesters
and
told
members
to
fight
back,
which
Balogh
himself
did.

And
that’s
why
Balogh
is
on
the
receiving
end
of
a
second
consecutive
ruling
against
him:
the
First
Amendment
doesn’t
protect
speakers
from
hostile
reactions from
other
citizens to
their
speech.
And
it
especially
doesn’t
protect
them
when
the
speakers
abandon
speaking
and
engage
in
violence
instead,
prompting
government
action
in
response
to
the violence,
rather
than
the
speech.

The
right
to
protest
is
a
core
First
Amendment
guarantee.
Nothing
about
our
decision
today
changes
that.
Rather,
we
reiterate
that
the
First
Amendment
protects
peaceful
protesters
from
a
state
seeking
to
suppress
their
speech.

But
this
isn’t
a
case
where
state
actors
silenced
Balogh’s
voice
while
permitting
lawlessness
from
a
hostile
public.
Nor
is
it
a
case
where
that
hostile
public
received
preferential
treatment
from
the
state.
Instead,
the
state
treated
all
speakers
equally
in
disbanding
a
violent
protest.

This
should
be
the
end
of
this.
Balogh,
though,
is
representing
himself,
so
it’s
clear
he
doesn’t
mind
spending
his
time
engaging
in
lost
causes.
But
even
if
he
decides
he
is
going
to
take
this
to
the
top
court
in
the
land,
there’s
almost
zero
chance
the
top
court
is
going
to
waste its time
engaging
with
this
garbage
litigation.
Balogh
went
looking
for
a
fight
and
got
it.
But
then
he
wanted
more.
He
wanted
the
government
to
pay
him
for
breaking
up
the
fight
he
provoked.
That’s
how
entitlement
works,
folks.
White
boys
with
chips
on
their
shoulders
think
the
world
owes
them
a
living
even
as
they
seek
to
deprive
others
of
the
things
that
actually
make
life
worth
living.

(Opinion
on
next
page…)

4th
Circuit
Shoots
Down
‘Unite
The
Right’
Protester’s
Attempt
To
Turn
The
Consequences
Of
His
Own
Actions
Into
A
Constitutional
Violation

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Russia
Issues
Fine
To
Google
For
More
Money
Than
Exists
Over
Banned
YouTube
Channels

Federal
Court
Finally
Sets
Some
Limits
On
Cell
Phone
Ping
Warrants

Data
Shows
‘Progressive’
Prosecution
Policies
Don’t
Lead
To
Higher
Crime
Rates

*
For
you
civil
procedure
fans:
Florida
resident
sues
Delaware
corporation
doing
business
in
New
York
in..Northern
District
of
Texas
—
Amarillo
to
secure
a
1-in-1
chance
of
scoring
a
judge
loyal
to
the
plaintiff.
[

Reuters]

*
After
the
Supreme
Court
blessed
purging
voters
within
days
of
the
election,
Iowa
is
following
Virginia’s
suit.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
YSL
trial
stayed
true
to
form
and
couldn’t
even
get
a
plea
deal
done
without
bizarre
and
unnecessary
drama.
[NPR]

*
Former
first
minister
of
Scotland
apologizing
for
calling
lawyer
a
“Tory
f*ckwit.”
Though,
unlike
American
conservatives
clutching
pearls
over
the
idea
that
one
of
their
comedians
was
called
garbage,
the
UK
lawyer
responded,
“No
offence
is
taken.”
[RollonFriday]

*
Profiling
the
lawyers
on
the
Harris
transition
team,
which
is
heavy
on
Biglaw.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
CFPB
considering
action
against
Meta
over
financial
ads.
[Law360]

*
“Antitrust
Zeal
to
Morph
but
Won’t
Fade
Under
Next
President.”
In
that
Trump
may
use
it
to
punish
companies
he
doesn’t
like
and
Harris
will
openly
defy
her
most
vocal
deep
pocketed
donors?Not
so
sure
about
this,
but
here’s
hoping.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]