Is your claim that closing off a public accommodation to a group of people is a first amendment violation? You didn't respond to the Mall of America v. BLM example, which prevents an assembly of BLM at Mall of America, and only at Mall of America. BLM can spout off someplace else.
-- ... in order to stop it ... would have required government action WITHOUT the proprietor's consent. --
My contention (which you claim is a first amendment violation) is that this would have been legal before the violence started. The government claims to have probable cause of gang criminal conspiracy.
Even without probable cause for criminal conspiracy, the police could have lanced this boil before it erupted. See Peaktastic (franchisor) Motion to Designate Unknown Criminal Actors and law Enforcement as Responsible Third Parties, in the suit against Peaktastic by Don Carlos.
“Is your claim that closing off a public accommodation to a group of people is a first amendment violation?”
If the government is trying to use prior restraint to prevent a group of people from assembling, yes, that is generally a first amendment violation.
“You didn’t respond to the Mall of America v. BLM example, which prevents an assembly of BLM at Mall of America, and only at Mall of America. BLM can spout off someplace else.”
You said that Mall of America requested that, not the government, so that example doesn’t seem to be relevant at all. If the government isn’t the one trying to prevent the assembly, then it isn’t a first amendment issue.
“My contention (which you claim is a first amendment violation) is that this would have been legal before the violence started. The government claims to have probable cause of gang criminal conspiracy.”
Remember, this was a COCI sponsored event, not a Bandidos event. Even if the government had evidence that the Bandidos or other groups were conspiring to commit violence, that wouldn’t necessarily have helped them convince a court to deny 1st amendment protected rights to an ostensibly separate organization.