D.C. Court Agrees That BLM Rioters Were Treated as if They Were Above the Law

During the George Floyd riots in the spring and summer of 2020, BLM rioters were essentially allowed to wreak havoc as they pleased without consequence. The nation watched as rioters burned and defaced buildings, and liberal-controlled cities did little to stop it. Washington, D.C., for example, refused to prosecute rioters who defaced buildings, yet, when pro-life protesters used chalk on an abortion clinic, the city threw the book at them, and two pro-life activists were arrested in 2020.

In response, the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America sued the city, and the court unanimously agreed that Washington applied its anti-graffiti ordinance in a “discriminatory” manner and allowed BLM rioters to deface property without any consequences.

“The District all but abandoned enforcement of the defacement ordinance during the Black Lives Matter protests, creating a de facto categorical exemption for individuals who marked ‘Black Lives Matter’ messages on public and private property,” the court ruling reads. “The complaint offers a number of examples. The day after Mayor Bowser’s street mural was revealed, protestors added an equal sign and ‘Defund the Police,’ so the message read ‘Black Lives Matter = Defund the Police.'”

The court also noted that “Police officers watched as the alteration took place and did nothing to stop it” and that even though BLM protesters didn’t have a permit or permission, “they were neither arrested nor charged under the defacement ordinance. In fact, the District left the addition in place for months, eventually removing it in mid-August.”

Protesters also “covered construction scaffolding outside the Chamber of Commerce with graffiti, murals, and photographs” yet were never stopped or arrested for violating the anti-graffiti ordinance.

“Specifically, selective enforcement of a neutral and facially constitutional law may run afoul of the First Amendment if the government’s prosecutorial choices turn on the content or viewpoint of speech. It is well established the government ‘may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys,'” the court argued.

Students for Life of America was pleased with the ruling.

“It’s very encouraging that there was a unanimous 3-0 decision in favor of the free speech rights of pro-life students, peacefully protesting in our nation’s capital,” Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins said in a statement. “Viewpoint discrimination is un-American, and, as the case proceeds, we look forward to learning more about how D.C. officials picked winners and losers in their enforcement. Free speech rights you’re afraid to use don’t really exist, and we will keep fighting for the rights of our students to stand up for the preborn and their mothers, and against the predatory abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood.”