Joey Gibson, the leader of alt-right group Patriot Prayer, says a lawsuit filed against him by Portland bar Cider Riot is simply a tool to limit his constitutional right to protest.
In a legal motion filed this afternoon, Gibson’s lawyer James Buchal (who also serves as the chairperson of Multnomah County GOP) argues that his client is the target of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), a name for litigation that appears specifically crafted to intimidate and silence critics. Buchal says Gibson is simply using his First Amendment rights to stamp out anti-fascists (better known as Antifa).
Here’s how Gibson describes antifa members in his personal declaration in support of the motion:
“I and many others believe that the United States is currently engaged in a spiritual struggle against evil, manifested in many ways. One manifestation of this evil is the rise of violent, thuggish gangs operating in the City of Portland, Oregon, which attack fundamental American values and support a Godless socialist or communist regime, the establishment of which would threaten America’s future.”
Buchal’s anti-SLAPP motion accuses Cider Riot owner Abram Goldman-Armstrong of acting on behalf of local antifa groups.
Goldman-Armstrong filed a lawsuit against Patriot Prayer, Gibson, and several other members of Patriot Prayer on May 3, two days after the right-wing provocateurs engaged in a violent street fight outside of his business.
Patriot Prayer decided to march to Cider Riot—following a day of peaceful May Day rallies—after learning that people associated with antifa were at the pub.
Videos of the confrontation show members of Patriot Prayer approaching Cider Riot’s outside patio dressed in armor, wearing helmets, and wielding batons. After shouting insults at the patrons, one man with Patriot Prayer sprays people sitting on the patio with mace, kicking off a violent melee that ended with at least one woman being sent to the hospital.
Goldman-Armstrong’s lawsuit charges Gibson with acting negligently and trespassing on private property, and requests a trial by jury. The May 3 complaint references Gibson’s history in leading protests in downtown Portland that often turn violent.
“Patriot Prayer and Gibson’s tactics vary from convening protesters to intimidate minorities, immigrants and/or leftists, to direct violence, to campaigns of terror under cover of night,” the lawsuit reads.
Gibson rejects these claims, claiming that his main goal in holding public events is to “save members of the public by restoring an appreciation for the Nation’s founding principles, both spiritual and as embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
“In general, I attempt to engage members of Antifa one [on] one and come to a dialog, trying to get them to wake up and cease affiliation with Antifa,” Gibson writes in his declaration. “When members of Antifa respond with violence, I remain nonviolent and do my best to publicize their response, so as to show Americans the nature of Antifa, and the threat it poses.”
Buchal argues that Gibson is not unlike members of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose ability to protest LGBT rights at funerals of LGBT soldiers was upheld by the US Supreme Court, which determined the group’s messaging was “of public concern.”
Just because Gibson’s political views are unpopular in Portland, Buchal writes, he shouldn’t have to forfeit his right to protest.
“The court may regard Mr. Gibson’s attempts to induce the Antifa participants to see the evil of their ways as no more likely to succeed that the Westboro Church’s attempts to change social views concerning homosexuality,” Buchal writes. “But the conduct is protected.”
Gibson goes on to accuse Congressman Earl Blumenaur, Mayor Ted Wheeler, several Portland city commissioners, left-wing activists, nonprofit organizations, and multiple news outlets (including the Mercury) of falsely portraying his work and motivation.
It’s this widespread criticism of Gibson that’s led him to request that, if a trial is held, it takes place outside of the Portland metro region.
“The political environmental within Multnomah County and the City of Portland is so hostile and prejudicial that anyone who dares treat me as anything other than a violent racist Nazi will suffer adverse consequences,” Gibson writes. “I believe I cannot possible get a fair trial in the… Portland area.”
OMFG! What an idiot! And his lawyer is just as as stupid. The First Amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT restricting free speech. Private citizens and companies are in no way covered. Gibson I can understand being an utter fool. But his attorney? Makes me wonder how times it took hist attorney to pass the bar exam if this person cannot even see this difference.
While many of the statements in the Gibson brief are nonsensical. the points of law are interesting. Meanwhile the Cider Riot brief lacks case law citations; that’s weak. The judge may decide to let the case proceed and rule on the application of anti-SLAPP law just to lay down case law on it.
If Patriot Prayer had only held up signs at Cider Riot I think the legal argument put forth could be upheld and the lawsuit dismissed. As this isn’t anything close to what actually transpired I would hope that the case finds that Joey Gibson, as leader and organizer of these violent individuals, is held to account for his violent agitations.
” “The political environmental within Multnomah County and the City of Portland is so hostile and prejudicial that anyone who dares treat me as anything other than a violent racist Nazi will suffer adverse consequences,” Gibson writes. “I believe I cannot possible get a fair trial in the… Portland area.”
Guess he should of stayed in the ‘Couv.
What with the rampant confusion in everyone’s minds these days, but with some definitely affected much more than others, it seems like the more deluded someone is, the more likely they are to have a following.
Anti-Constitutional bars wallowing in Marx and Lenin have long lusted to destroy the First Amendment, when not pining for national health care to cover their bar-backs and advocating for more gender parity in wandering bachelorette parties — think about it, have you ever really been to a truly “happy hour”? How free have you felt to question the mirth and merriment of those around you without fear of losing a free jello shot as the tray comes your way?
@phlegmmy, both the Joey and the original Cider briefs are linked across several Mercury articles. As far as I’m aware anti-SLAPP has been applied to things like Yelp reviews. Free speech in the Oregon constitution is fiercely protected. That is why we have exotic dancing.
Joey is arguing that he can stand in the streets and encourage his gang to go onto the Cider Riot property and threaten/beat up customers as long as he throws in some telling them not to. It’s all very Trump-like. So we will see the extent the courts allow action under anti-SLAPP in combination with the Oregon constitution.
Under the Oregon law, if Joey were to win under anti-SLAPP, Cider would have to pay his legal fees.
It’s a crafty defense.
The Merc posted the below briefs which anyone can read. It is redundant – the links are in the Mercury for anyone and everyone to read.
We expect the Merc to update the court postings in future stories!
Merc readers would have read Merc links:
https://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2019/07/22/1563844933-motion.pdf
and
https://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2019/05/07/1557258333-amended_complaint.pdf
The Mercury is out-reporting the OregonLive and the Trib on this story, in my opinion. Hope it continues.
The trouble with declaring yourself concerned with antifa, is that you are automatically placing yourself on the pro-fascism side. Which is not constitutionally protected speech.
Cider Riot/OJRC have not filed any ‘briefs’ because they have not entered any pleadings for or against a Motion. They have only submitted the original Complaint. Civil Complaints do not typically cite case law in Oregon circuit courts.
They will file a response at some point to Joey Gibson/Patriot Prayer’s motion to dismiss and memorandum in support of motion. That will contain case law.
Also, while the Gibson/PP memo has a lot of case law, nearly all of it seems to be citing cases in other states or US Supreme Court cases on very tangentially related matters, so it’s unclear how relevant it will be.
The legal prose is pretty good in it, at least.
“you are automatically placing yourself on the pro-fascism side. Which is not constitutionally protected speech.”
Huh? Of course pro-fascist, or communist, or racist, or maoist, or sexist, or etc. Is Constitutionally protected speech. Unless you are engaging in imminent, specific and credible threats or slander your speech is protected. Period.