"Keep New England White" Banner Allowed By NE Supreme Court!

World News Report Today
29 followers
World News Report Today
January 13th 2025!
"Keep New England White" Banner Allowed By NE Supreme Court!
#freedomofspeech #1stamendment #freespeech #newengland #keepnewenglandwhite #banner #supremecourt
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/keep-new-england-white-banner-did-not-violate-state-law-new-hampshire-supreme-court-rules
https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/image%28961%29_0.jpg?itok=JaveWRGy
Please share and Subscribe and help the channel by purchasing a cup of coffee for WNRT to help us keep pushing to get real news to you!
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/worldnewsreport
James Kaufman, World News Report, today, January 13, 2025.
God bless you and yours, no matter where you are in the world.
Please subscribe, give us a thumbs up,
and ring that bell for critical future updates.
Keep New England White Banner did not violate law
per the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
I'm going to personally say that I think it's racist, at the least.
It might not be used in hiring, etc., but I think this is racist.
People who displayed a Keep New England white banner
from a highway overpass in July 2022
did not know they violated state law
because they did not appear to know they were trespassing.
New Hampshire's top court has ruled.
William Jens, a lawyer representing the group,
said its members were pleased with the New
Hampshire Supreme Court decision.
New Hampshire Law RSA 354B1 states in part
that a person violates the rights of others
when that person inflicts damage,
threatens to inflict damage, or trespasses on property
when such actual or threatened conduct is motivated by race,
color, religion, national
origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex,
gender identification, or disability.
Gender identification, huh?
State officials brought civil claims against
the members of the Nationalist Social Club,
also known as NSC 131, who unfurled the banner on July 30,
2022 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
contending they violated the law
because their actions were motivated by race
and interfered with the lawful activities of others.
A trial court dismissed the case after finding
the state civil rights law was unconstitutional
and overboard.
An appeals placed the case in front of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
The justices, in a unanimous opinion handed down on January 10th,
upheld the lower court's
ruling, quote, the overbreath of the state's...
Construction of the Act creates an unacceptable risk of a chill
on speech predicted by Part 1, Article 22 of our state constitution.
Specifically, the state's construction of the Act would impose
government sanctions on those who unintentionally trespass
on public property and whose presence is motivated by one
The characteristics enumerated in RSA 354B1,
the Justice wrote, in a procurum opinion,
such a broad sweep discourages the expression
of certain messages for fear of government
sanctions under the Act based on the context of the message expressed.
It's also not reasonable to allow charges
to be brought against people who don't appear
to know that they are trespassing.
Justices stated in their opinion,
they ruled that the state officials must establish that people
are knowingly trespassing, and noted that officials did
not do so in the case against Christopher Hood and the other members
of the group that took credit for displaying the banners.
Now, they were on public overpasses.
I don't know how that could be trespassing,
but we'll talk about that some other time.
Because the Supreme Court says it's not.
Again, I think there's no room in America for that sign,
but this is the Supreme Court's decision out of one state.
The top courts wrote in their opinion that Hood was not wearing a mask,
spoke to police officers on the scene,
and identified himself as the group's leader.
The group removed the banner and other banners,
and they were told that they were trespassing on public property.
The Supreme Court continued,
even when construing all the reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the state,
we were not persuaded that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that
the defendants normally trespass, the judges ruled.
Of course they didn't know they were trespassing.
They were on a public road.
The Attorney General's office said he
was disappointed by the court's decision, but
respects it.
Spokesperson Gary Gardy said in a statement,
So, it's illegal if you're trespassing
on public property to have a banner that says,
Keep New England White.
But if you don't know you're trespassing, then it's completely legal.
God bless you and yours.
Please share, subscribe, and always remember,
anything is possible in Bizarro World.
