Reagan Airport Twitter Account Blasted for Tweet Declaring Pro-Hamas Road Blockers Are ‘Exercising 1A Rights’
“TRAFFIC ALERT: Expect delays around the airport due to a group in vehicles exercising first amendment rights in roadway.”
I didn’t have the Reagan Airport Twitter account weighing in on the Israel-Hamas war debate on my 2024 bingo card, yet here we are.
One tactic pro-Hamas protesters here in the United States have used to gain attention is by intentionally impeding travelers who are on their way to major airports.
We saw it, for instance, in Los Angeles and New York City a month ago when protesters deliberately staged human blockades near the LAX and JFK airports.
On Saturday, however, the method was one we’ve seen them use before at places like La Guardia, JFK, and PDX airports on on New Year’s Day: using convoys to disrupt traffic, and in the process causing significant delays into Reagan International Airport in Virginia:
Happening now: A caravan of at least 6 vehicles are purposefully slowing both lanes of traffic headed north on the GW Parkway toward @Reagan_Airport. Palestinian flags are being flown from several vehicles. This has caused a significant traffic jam. pic.twitter.com/eMGe7xafrU
— Ben Dennis DC News Now (@broadcastben_) January 20, 2024
No business as usual while the US is backing a genocide. Today’s car caravan disrupted GW parkway and Reagan (🤢) airport near DC. Shut it down until 🇵🇸 is free. pic.twitter.com/mnD0Jz2tTq
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) January 21, 2024
Because of the traffic snarls, the Reagan Airport Twitter account issued a traffic alert, advising people to instead use the Metro to get to the airport.
But it was the way they described the caravan of anti-Israel protesters that caught the attention of social media netizens:
🔺TRAFFIC ALERT: Expect delays around the airport due to a group in vehicles exercising first amendment rights in roadway. Use caution and expect slow moving vehicles. Recommend @Wmata to access airport.
— Reagan Airport (@Reagan_Airport) January 20, 2024
“…due to a group in vehicles exercising first amendment rights in roadway”? Is that really what they were doing?
Though we certainly do have a right to protest in America, there is no First Amendment right to block traffic, as noted by the ACLU of all places in a link that was also added as a Community Note to the Reagan Airport tweet:
Blocking traffic and entrances
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to block pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or to prevent entry and exit from buildings. For example, a federal court recently held that the Chicago police did not violate the First Amendment by arresting protesters who were impeding a heavy flow of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks near Chicago’s Soldier Field, and who disobeyed a police order to step off the sidewalk and onto the immediately adjacent gravel. Likewise, a Chicago ordinance prohibits intentional obstruction of vehicle traffic.
There is NO First Amendment “right” to block traffic. Via @aclu. https://t.co/DlG4jPwPaT pic.twitter.com/ZiNY34NaON
— Kedron Bardwell (@KedronBardwell) January 20, 2024
🙄
Even the @ACLU says you don’t have a First Amendment right to do this garbage. https://t.co/YfAvdgyJiz https://t.co/dMU9K97esC pic.twitter.com/S40CsmeXv7
— Arlington GOP (@goparlington) January 20, 2024
Hamilton Law Institute’s Ted Frank also weighed in with his legal opinion:
“You do not have a first amendment right to block the roadway. In fact, drivers inconvenienced by such illegal action have a civil cause of action for public nuisance against the people and organizations conspiring to block the roadway. If you were trapped in your car, you have a false imprisonment tort claim, too.
You may wish to consult an attorney.
My nonprofit public interest law firm, @hamlinclaw, has been speaking up about people’s rights and ability to use the civil justice system to stop this.”
You do not have a first amendment right to block the roadway. In fact, drivers inconvenienced by such illegal action have a civil cause of action for public nuisance against the people and organizations conspiring to block the roadway. If you were trapped in your car, you have a… https://t.co/H4Evf8F0WP pic.twitter.com/WDBqSZwDA5
— (((tedfrank))) (@tedfrank) January 20, 2024
As did Fire.org’s Nico Perrino:
You do not have a First Amendment right to block an active roadway.
Reagan Airport out here spreading the misinformation and making my job as a First Amendment guy harder. https://t.co/wbQmZiJmDv
— Nico Perrino (@NicoPerrino) January 20, 2024
Further, it was also pointed out that the Virginia Code expressly notes that traffic blockades are against the law except in emergency situations or due to a vehicle breaking down:
"exercising first amendment rights in roadway"
It's a crime to block traffic. https://t.co/cwJKL4V993 pic.twitter.com/hWRltaLh0M
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) January 21, 2024
Some questioned exactly what “first amendment” activity the Reagan Airport Twitter account suggested the protesters were engaging in:
Are those vehicles all just parked and reading the Bill of Rights? What activity are you referring to? https://t.co/vreYfzxiJ6
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 20, 2024
Others quipped about how the account had handed them the perfect excuse to give to police officers who urge people who are waiting to pick someone up to move on:
Next time a cop tells me to move it along when I linger for 30 seconds looking for someone I’m picking up, I’ll just say I’m exercising my first amendment rights. https://t.co/HbSl2oHIE0
— Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) January 20, 2024
There we also calls for them to delete their account, which I think is a fair suggestion:
Delete your account
— Hube (@ColossusRhodey) January 20, 2024
As to how Ronald Reagan himself might have reacted had he saw the tweet:
Reagan responds: https://t.co/K54U0fOrfr pic.twitter.com/9iLUslmLKU
— Allen J. Wilson 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇮🇪 (@AllenJWilson) January 20, 2024
Pretty much.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
These obnoxious displays of Muslim supremacism and Islamofascist bullying and muscle-flexing are fully supported by the Dhimmi-crat Party and the D.C. Swamp.
Screw that right to a civil action against them. Mount a cattle pusher on the front of your vehicle.
If only that were legal. Unfortunately it isn’t.
It is in some States.
Legal, shmegal. They aren’t abiding by the law and neither are the “authorities.” That usually leads to less civil action and they only have themselves to blame. Not saying I endorse it, but I fear it is inevitable.
“Legal shmeagal” won’t help you when you’re arrested and tried for attempted murder. Driving through people blocking the road ought to be legal, but unfortunately it isn’t.
But a lovely pair of “LOUD speakers” playing Lawrence Welk music are
😉
Medieval style, with spikes.
I think, under the right circumstances, mounting a cattle pusher on the front of your vehicle could be protected under the 1st Amendment. It might make the 1st A. argument even stronger if the driver of the vehicle was a male, wearing a woman’s dress (lots of sequins) and very heavy makeup. Could be worth a try. I hereby nominate OldLawman!!
Blocking a public road counts as fighting words in Ohio.
That seems like a very reasonable solution to this type of problem. Block the road, risk getting your ass beat.
1. The “fighting words” doctrine is almost certainly no longer valid law.
2. More importantly, even when it was in effect, that doctrine did not in any way justify or mitigate the crime of assault. There has never been a doctrine in US law that you are entitled to punch someone in the face just because he called you an … uncomplimentary name. You would always be arrested for assault. It merely used to be that some states had a law that he would also be arrested for triggering you, and the Supreme Court said those states were allowed to have such a law. That didn’t do you any good.
3. Even when the doctrine existed, it only applied to words spoken directly to an individual, face-to-face, of a nature that could be expected to spur him into immediate violence. Words not directed to a specific individual were never covered by the doctrine, and could never be criminalized.
What about states with mutual combat laws?
How are those relevant? These people have not consented to fight. They can’t be “deemed” to have consented merely by provoking their attacker.
How is it relevant? It goes to your point #2. In mutual combat states, two parties can engage in a physical confrontation without legal repercussions.
Fighting words are an invitation to violence, so couldn’t the insulted party simply accept the offer?
Only if they have both explicitly consented. These protesters have clearly not consented to being driven through. The whole premise of their action is that they rely on people not being able to drive through them for fear of arrest. They’re like Arthur Dent (or St Rachel the Pancake) lying in front of the bulldozer, or those idiots who sit in trees to stop them from being chopped down.
No, they are not. Even when the doctrine existed that was not what it said.
It’s cute that you think Lefties still follow and obey the law.
What’s that got to do with it? Whether they follow it or not, it remains the law. We are discussing rhhardin’s assertion that in Ohio “blocking a public road counts as fighting words”. Not only is that assertion irrelevant now because there probably is no such thing any more, it was also untrue back when “fighting words” was a thing, and even if it had been true it would be completely useless for the purpose for which he asserted it. Specifically, he seems to think that this makes it lawful to assault these people; that was never true, and it’s certainly not true now.
The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson would disagree with you.
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
You are correct that that doctrine has been limited to some extent, but it is still out there and relevant. (Just not in this instance.)
1. You are not quoting the opinion in Johnson but the dissent.
2. The entire paragraph is not even from Johnson; it is a citation that the dissent included from Chaplinsky, which is very likely no longer good law.
Might want to look at California, of all places. Giving someone the finger there is considered fighting words and a provocation.
The fighting words doctrine is probably no longer valid, which means that CA law is probably unconstitutional.
But when the doctrine existed this might have been valid, because giving someone the finger is expression made directly to an individual, face-to-face. Therefore, under the doctrine, the state could make such expression illegal. Though see Nichols v Chacon and Brockway v Shepherd, which seem to say the opposite.)
Blocking traffic, on the other hand, is not speech directed at any individual, so even back then it would not qualify as fighting words and could not be banned on that basis (it could of course be banned simply for the act itself, and it is so banned in every jurisdiction).
But even then, it did not justify or excuse violence from the person to whom the insult was directed. Provocation is not a justification for assault.
Actions speak louder than words.
Florida treats protestor road blocks as the attempted hostage taking events that they are.
Florida passed a law that even says you do not have to stop to render first aid for anyone that you injure in such a situation.
I don’t believe that is actually the case. I have found what I believe to be the law you are referring to, and it doesn’t say that. It does provide someone who injures a rioter with a defense to civil (not criminal) action against him, if he can show that his action resulted from being injured or harmed by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has been convicted of rioting.
I also found an Oklahoma law that provides both civil and criminal immunity to drivers, but only if they were fleeing from a riot out of fear of death or injury.
I have long maintained that it ought to be legal to drive through protesters even if you are not afraid of being injured, merely as an exercise of your right to go about your lawful business unobstructed.
That gif of Reagan. Why is there a piece of flesh hanging from his chin. What is that?
It’s called a “wattle.” It happens to people when they age, like crepe skin and arm flab. I’m developing them, though my beard still hides it.
Yes, they are exercising their rights, and infringeing on the rights of others. But their civil disobedience and violence should be dealt with in a way that both addresses their sanctimony and deters others that also want to abuse their rights and pretend virtue.
There needs to be immediate pain, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, Maybe equip vehicles with protester attitude adjusters?
What crap
What about Jan 6 protesters
Oh, we know
Well, it is technically true that these people were exercising their first amendment rights. It is also true that they were blocking traffic, which is not a right, and which is a crime. They were doing both things at the same time, and one has nothing to do with the other.
They have the right to fly nazi flags and shout vile slogans. They don’t have the right to block traffic. And the fact that they’re doing the first doesn’t immunize them from the second, any more than you can get away with shooting someone merely by reciting slogans as you pull the trigger.
Unless the slogan is “stop resisting arrest!”
That reminds me of a South Park episode where they were taught to yell “They’re heading right for us!” as they shot the animals, that way they could claim it was an imminent threat.
Yep. Holding a sign, shouting slogans and other 1A activities do not act as a shield for criminal behavior.
They were not behaving peaceably. Freedom of assembly is “to peaceably assemble”.
I love living in a small town. This crap would not fly here. Too many good ole boys in trucks bigger than a half ton pickup that would hit the horn and push their way through.
Does my tinfoil hat run on a different frequency that all y’all’s?*
I immediately read this tweet as a snide, passive-aggressive crypto-commentary by a fellow redpiller who was tired of the kabuki.
“They’re screwing up my day and causing me extra work, but nobody in authority is gonna do a damn thing about these vandals because ‘First Amendment! First Amendment!'”
*Scratch that, I think everybody here already knows that’s true.
Do these idiots really think the IDF gives a damn about them blocking traffic in a city half a world away?
It’s a pretty simple problem. Until these terrorist sympathizers face real consequences for their illegal actions, nothing is going to change.
I think the Northern VA voters richly deserve the Pro-Palestinian protesters’ harassment. I suspect that the protesters and local voters largely support the SAME candidates. It’s interesting to occasionally see when the chickens come home to roost.