NRA Suing SF Board of Supervisors

Good. First, the accusation that the NRA is a terrorist organization is spectacularly untrue. Second, this is yet another example of the labeling that some seem to think is a substitute for rational debate. Since racist, sexist or homophobic aren't applicable, use terrorist.

Proving libel should be a slam dunk and the courts have traditionally taken a very dim view of viewpoint discrimination. I hope the NRA gets a nice big $ judgement, although just seeing the SF Board of Supervisors get smacked down would be satisfying enough.

Good. I don't even like the NRA and won't be a member unless they make some massive leadership changes. But I fully support suing San Fransisco's pants off.

Glad to hear it. It's high time someone fought back against this lunacy

natman said:

Proving libel should be a slam dunk and the courts have traditionally taken a very dim view of viewpoint discrimination.

Click to expand...

We've discussed this before. The NRA would have a very difficult time winning its case.

1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."
2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA. It may even receive an increase in contributions because of this.
3. As a "public figure," the NRA would have to prove that the Board acted with "actual malice" under the rules of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.

Filing the suit is just a way of looking relevant to its own membership.

Sadly, what Alexander said.
I saw a very attractive lady, apparently a member of Tha 'Frisco board, give a mind numbing stoopid excuse for what they did. But it was really no different than other antis excuses.
And, sovereign immunity, like Alexander said ...

AlexanderA said:

We've discussed this before. The NRA would have a very difficult time winning its case.

1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."
2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA. It may even receive an increase in contributions because of this.
3. As a "public figure," the NRA would have to prove that the Board acted with "actual malice" under the rules of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.

Filing the suit is just a way of looking relevant to its own membership.

Click to expand...

Even intentional and punitive damage probably won't crack the protection of Sovereign immunity. Ain't that a hell of a thing? The government intentionally goes out of its way to hurt a citizen or a group and under law they're protected. I understand the reasons why they're protected, but it doesn't always sit well.

Perhaps the NRA as a plaintiff cannot prove actual damages, but what about individuals and city contractors whose livelihood may be harmed by this insane declaration, due to membership or some connection with the NRA? Would they have a case?

AlexanderA said:

1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."

Click to expand...

Sovereign Immunity does not apply in cases where a breach of the Constitution is alleged. The NRA is alleging just that. Specifically that it violates the precedent set in Board of County COmmissioners V Umbehr.

AlexanderA said:

2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA.

Click to expand...

The NRA alleges, and it is self evident, that San Frans declaration in and of itself is a call to create monetary damages. But, that's not really central to the lawsuit filed. The NRA didn't file a slander or defamation lawsuit. They filed a civil rights violation lawsuit:

Count One: Violation Of The NRA’s First And Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 By The Establishment Of An Implicit Censorship Regime (As To All Defendants).
Count Two: Violation Of The NRA’s First And Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 By Retaliating Against The NRA Based On Its Speech (As To All Defendants).
Count Three: Violation Of The NRA’s Right To Freedom Of Association Protected By The First And Fourteenth Amendment Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (As To All Defendants).

ClickClickD'oh said:

The NRA didn't file a slander or defamation lawsuit. They filed a civil rights violation lawsuit:

Click to expand...

My answer was based on the assumption that it was a defamation case. As a civil rights violation case, it is even weaker. I expect it to be thrown out of court forthwith. A declaration by a city council that an organization is "terrorist" has no legal effect. It's just their unsupported opinion, and it's beyond the scope of the council's authority. For example, it doesn't place the NRA and its members on a "watch list," preventing them from flying, etc.

What we really have here are two opposing sides each exercising their right of free speech. Perhaps the SF Council is wrong to attempt to stifle the NRA's free speech, but the NRA is equally wrong to try to stifle the Council's free speech. The courts are going to wash their hands of the whole thing.

AlexanderA said:

A declaration by a city council that an organization is "terrorist" has no legal effect.

Click to expand...

And if that's all that the resolution did you would be on to something. The NRA even said that portion of the resolution was a "frivolous insult". You didn't even read the counts or check up on Board of County Commissioners V Umbehr did you?

Let me help. From page 15: "Defendats unlawful exhortations to government contractors to disclose their memberships and other relationships with the NRA, and to cease those relationships with the NRA constitute a concerted effort to deprive the NRA and it’s members and supporters of their freedom of speech and association by threatening the loss of government contracts, and the concomitant impact on the NRA’s survival and its ability to disseminate its message. Far from protected government speech, Defendants actions constitute a “threat[] to employ coercive state power”

This has nothing to do with libel/slander/defamation or San Fran declaring the NRA to be a Domestic Terrorist organization.

It's because of this:

"FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to assess the financial and contractual relationships our vendors and contractors have with this domestic terrorist organization; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization;
https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF64490F-D8BC-4BF7-A43D-287F02BECCCA

NAACP V Alabama might want to have a word with that.
So does Board of County Commissioners V Umbehr

AlexanderA said:

Perhaps the SF Council is wrong to attempt to stifle the NRA's free speech, but the NRA is equally wrong to try to stifle the Council's free speech.

Click to expand...

Facepalm. That's... special.

Seriously, the lawsuit is available online. Please read it. I mean, you didn't even know what the lawsuit was prior to your last post, but you want us to take your word for why it will fail..

There is a reason politicians try not to go head on with the NRA. San Francisco is about to find out the reason why.

AlexanderA said:

We've discussed this before. The NRA would have a very difficult time winning its case.

1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."
2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA. It may even receive an increase in contributions because of this.
3. As a "public figure," the NRA would have to prove that the Board acted with "actual malice" under the rules of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.

Filing the suit is just a way of looking relevant to its own membership.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, alleged defamatory labeling of an organization is not protected by any sort of sovereign immunity from federal causes for action; it can violate the liberty clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th amendment which overrides California law on the matter if any concrete actions occur plus the labeling--e.g. stigma through labeling plus any action such as refusal to do business. Any sanctions applied might probably is illegal also under the Unruh law in California that prohibits discrimination based on political orientation. A private organization such as the SPLC would follow the NYT v. Sullivan; however, government declarations that have negative impacts can affect either a liberty or property interest or both.

Essentially, the San Francisco city government is attempting to affect fundraising and support of the NRA and thus is potentially liable because the government 's actions lacked any due process protections for a potentially defamatory action and if any sanctions were included by government, then the stigma+labeling is enough to get into federal court and avoid California law entirely. For example, Trump's pre-election statements were used as an example of bias to overturn a travel ban. See Constineau v. WI for liberty interest precedent as Constineau was labeled a drunkard by the local government and this resulted in her not being able to buy alcohol in the local retailers and obviously hurt employment and other issues.

frogfurr said:

There is a reason politicians try not to go head on with the NRA. San Francisco is about to find out the reason why.

Click to expand...

San Francisco is one of those places where politicians gain points by demonizing the NRA. Northern Virginia (where I live) is another. Our congressman (Gerry Connolly) makes a selling point of his "F" rating from the NRA. (Ironically the NRA headquarters is in the district.)

Been a NRA member for a very long time. Seen them in a few fire fights. Let's just see how they do.

natman said:

Proving libel should be a slam dunk and the courts have traditionally taken a very dim view of viewpoint discrimination. I hope the NRA gets a nice big $ judgement, although just seeing the SF Board of Supervisors get smacked down would be satisfying enough.

Click to expand...

AlexanderA said:

We've discussed this before. The NRA would have a very difficult time winning its case.

1. The San Francisco Board, as a governmental entity, has "sovereign immunity."
2. The plaintiff has to prove actual damages. It would be hard to show that an absurd allegation of "terrorism" monetarily damaged the NRA. It may even receive an increase in contributions because of this.
3. As a "public figure," the NRA would have to prove that the Board acted with "actual malice" under the rules of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.

Filing the suit is just a way of looking relevant to its own membership.

Click to expand...

Let me see if I can clarify. By saying libel was easily provable, I meant that the SF BoS' statement is untrue and easily provable as such. The NRA may find it difficult to collect a judgement, but as long as the SF BoS is shown to be the liars and fools they are by whatever method, I'll be satisfied.

As far as actual malice, the BoS were clearly exercising "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Even a cursory examination of the meaning of "Domestic Terror Organization" would show the NRA meets NONE of the criteria. However, this is somewhat moot, since the NRA isn't actually filing a libel suit.

The other part is the BoS' call to boycott the NRA. That's viewpoint discrimination and it appears to be the main subject of the suit the NRA did file.