Skip to content

Free speech wins big in NH courtroom, but government wants to call to ‘shut it all down’…

MAGA is fighting the mob and so are we…but we need your help. Join our growing army and click here to subscribe to Revolver. Or simply give the gift of Revolver select the annual subscription and select “This is a gift” on the next page. meIf you want to give more during this critical time, you can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation donation — Whether it’s $1 or $1,000, every bit goes into the battle to save our great nation.

As our country descends into an unjust and godless communist wasteland, under the rule of a clueless despot, it is refreshing to see some semblance of sanity, justice and order return, if only for a fleeting moment. A recent case involving a group of admittedly unsavory white supremacists in New Hampshire serves as an illustrative example of the concern that the left is weaponizing the justice system to crush free speech.

Critics argue that they are censoring Americans based on politics, not law. In this particular case, which initially took place in June, members of a shadowy neo-Nazi group displayed a banner from a bridge that read, “Keep New England White.” The left, outraged by the message, called for legal action against two of the men: the group’s leader Christopher Hood and a member named Leo Cullinan.

Obviously, you don’t have to like these people or agree with what they stand for, but that doesn’t mean their rights can simply be erased. Fortunately, the judge agreed and followed the rule of law. The case was dismissed based on the defendants’ First Amendment rights and the prosecution’s ridiculously weak argument. The judge criticized the prosecution, calling its attempt to invoke a “Civil Rights” statute to prosecute a simple trespassing case “overbroad.”


A top court judge is throwing out a high-profile civil rights case against a regional white supremacist group and its leadership, ruling that New Hampshire prosecutors used an overly broad interpretation of state law to stifle protected speech .

Monday’s ruling came after Attorney General John Formella filed a civil rights petition against the group, NSC-131, and two of its members, Leo Cullinan and Christopher Hood, in January.

The defendants are accused of walking onto a bridge in Portsmouth last summer and hanging a banner that said “Keep New England White.”

The civil case, which had been scheduled for trial in late July, came with possible fines for Hood and Cullinan, but no jail time.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were protected by free speech grounds and that they removed the banner as soon as they were notified by law enforcement that they were violating an ordinance Portsmouth.

In a 21-page opinion issued Monday, Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David Ruoff dismissed the petitions, ruling that the state’s interpretation of the rape ordinance, as well as the Civil Rights Statute , was too broad as it applied to the banner.

“The conduct alleged in the complaints, while reprehensible by most civilized standards, does not meet any definition of ‘intrusion’ other than that which the Court has concluded is unconstitutional,” Ruoff wrote .

What a colossal waste of time and resources.

However, this is far from over. The New Hampshire attorney general’s office is back in court, once again trying to bring a civil rights case against the defendant. But this time, there is only one accused, as the accused Leo Cullinan died recently.

During a recent hearing, the judge questioned the radical, anti-American prosecution, asking if this was a case of “selective execution” and wryly pondering whether a person displaying a trans rainbow flag Martí would be subject to the same standard. The answer to this question seems pretty obvious, right?

It appears that this judge may not budge on the matter and may throw out this selective and wrongful prosecution that is clearly intended to silence free speech that our communist government does not like.

Live Mass:

Wednesday’s hearing was scheduled after Formella asked Ruoff to reconsider his decision, a request reserved for when a party believes a judge may have overlooked or misinterpreted parts of the law.

Exercising First Amendment rights does not allow a person to break the law, Assistant Attorney General Sean Locke argued in court Wednesday.

Boston attorney William E. Gens, representing the defendants, said the attorney general’s office would not have filed charges “if it was a blank sign or it said, “Love thy neighbor.”
“It’s not in the spirit of old-school free speech,” said Gens, of the law firm Gens & Stanton.

The Mass live the piece continues.

Wednesday’s hearing focused partially on the legal standards of intrusion, but Ruoff also asked Locke whether the case against NSC-131 members constituted selective enforcement of state law and targeted the group for their beliefs. The judge asked if charges will be filed against a person who put gay pride stickers on a telephone pole.

“We can drive around the state and see all kinds of signs that have been there for a while,” Ruoff said. “This one retires in 25 minutes.”

Freedom of speech is the next big battle. The left uses every trick in the book to silence those it disagrees with. But that’s the beauty of “free speech”: the people we disagree with most vehemently or most intensely are the ones who should be able to speak up in a truly open and free society, which we clearly lack At this moment.

The defense lawyer it continued:

Gens said that putting limits on where a person can speak “sets up a minefield of procedural prerequisites” where citizens “need that permission to deliver that message.”

He cited the historic precedent of the Supreme Court of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which found that the government can prohibit speech if it is “directed to incite or produce imminent unlawful action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

“The message that these people were putting out, ‘Keep New England White,’ can be a very offensive message,” Gens said. “But he does not advocate lawless actions.”

“What the attorney general is trying to do is say that this speech that would otherwise be protected is no longer protected if you’re putting up signs on the road or violating another ordinance,” Gens said.

The judge is expected to issue his decision in the coming weeks. We hope he stands firm on his principles and prioritizes freedom of expression over false social justice.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *