Top DOJ official's firm sues public university for arresting peaceful anti-abortion activist

When an anti-abortion activist held a sign depicting a fetus in utero with the caption "What about her body and her rights?" to the side of a University of South Florida weekly open-air market, campus police didn't just order him into a so-called free speech zone, as did Tucson, Ariz. police when an evangelist showed up to a nonsectarian Christmas street festival.

USF police arrested and jailed Tyler Newton for 14 hours on Sept. 23 at the behest of campus officials for standing with his sign and sharing his "abolitionist" views with passers-by, a new First Amendment lawsuit claims.

Describing Newton as a "disabled veteran who is medically retired" from the Army and has "committed himself to public advocacy and speech," the lawsuit says the taxpayer-funded university also banned Newton from campus for a year, preventing him from visiting his brother, a student, and he can't challenge the no-trespass order as a non-student.

The complaint is bound to get heightened attention because it was filed by the Center for American Liberty, founded and led by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon before her confirmation.

Dhillon's group apparently got involved quickly, since Newton posted a GiveSendGo fundraiser to cover his legal defense by Sept. 29 and had raised $875 as of Oct. 6 before hiding it. (The fundraiser still shows up in search results for his name and activism.)

Newton had also asked for donations in August so he could buy "recording equipment" to document his anti-abortion activism, having just returned to Florida with his wife and child, and it came in handy for his visit to USF last month.

Thank you for posting allendale.

This nonsense will stop only when the public employees who ordered the coercive violation of this man’s civil rights are held personally and financially liable for their criminal actions. Remove any legal immunities they have, sue them and make them pay.

The school's action is possibly a violation (imo) of the 14th Amendment (14A)-based federal law that punishes government actors for abridging constitutionally enumerated personal protections.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
18U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom[all emphases added], willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. —18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Although I don't see this law actually being enforced, 14A was successfully used to protect free speech in California awhile back.

UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)

But I wouldn't be surprised if California taxpayers effectively paid the settlement, defeating the purpose of the law if so imo.

“This nonsense will stop only when the public employees who ordered the coercive violation of this man’s civil rights are held personally and financially liable for their criminal actions. Remove any legal immunities they have, sue them and make them pay.”

Agreed. There needs to be serious repercussions for public employees who violate the constitutional rights of the people. Now, there is little to no punishment so there is little incentive for LEOs and others to uphold the Constitution.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.