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.

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.