{"id":214559,"date":"2025-04-30T10:31:15","date_gmt":"2025-04-30T10:31:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/the-first-amendment-protects-angeli-gomez-right-to-speak-about-her-experience\/"},"modified":"2025-04-30T10:31:15","modified_gmt":"2025-04-30T10:31:15","slug":"the-first-amendment-protects-angeli-gomez-right-to-speak-about-her-experience","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=214559","title":{"rendered":"The First Amendment Protects Angeli Gomez\u2019 Right to Speak About Her Experience"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"
The Mama Bear
Heroine of Uvalde<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

by Marc J. Randazza<\/em><\/p>\n

Angeli Gomez probably would find the title \u201cthe heroine of Uvalde\u201d to be embarrassing.\u00a0 Therefore, if she reads this, I must apologize for calling her that.\u00a0 But, Ms. Gomez demonstrated character and conduct that makes \u201cheroine\u201d a proper term for her.\u00a0 Her statement \u201cI\u2019m going in there\u201d should be enshrined on a monument somewhere, with nearly<\/em> as much honor as the words \u201clets roll<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Uvalde police?\u00a0 Just the opposite.\u00a0 Everyone knows their ineptitude and cowardice \u2014 waiting an hour while a loser shot kids inside the school.\u00a0 Ms. Gomez, frustrated with government flunkies, tried to go in and save her kids.\u00a0 Apparently a U.S. Marshal put her in handcuffs for \u201cintervening in an active investigation.\u201d (source<\/a>)\u00a0 \u201cRight away, as I parked, a US Marshal started coming toward my car, saying that I wasn\u2019t allowed to be parked there,\u201d she recalled. \u201cAnd he said, Well, we\u2019re gonna have to arrest you because you\u2019re being very uncooperative<\/em>.\u201d (source<\/a>)\u00a0 (second source<\/a>)\u00a0<\/p>\n

Local cops freed her, and she ran off, over the fence, into the school, grabbed her two kids and ran out. \u00a0<\/p>\n

Again, the words \u201cUvalde Police Department\u201d should be, from this day forward, synonymous with \u201cincompetence\u201d and \u201ccowardice\u201d and \u201cineptitude.\u201d\u00a0 That police department is 40% of the town\u2019s budget.\u00a0 They have a SWAT team<\/strong>, and yet a middle aged field-worker-mom showed more competence and heroism than this entire paramilitary over-funded group of preening tax-fattened losers? \u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
I am not a \u201cDefund the Police\u201d Guy, but this is definitely a waste of money. <\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

As if the Uvalde Police couldn\u2019t be any worse, they decided to try and shut her up, the First Amendment be damned.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n

They then threatened Ms. Gomez for talking to the press about what cowardly clowns the Uvalde P.D. was, is, and shall forever be known.\u00a0 She is on probation (I do not know why) for an event 10 years ago.\u00a0 They\u2019ve threatened her with a probation violation for \u201cobstruction of justice\u201d because she won\u2019t stay silent.\u00a0(source<\/a> at 4:45)\u00a0<\/p>\n

The First Amendment protects your right to speak your mind about how the government acts \u2014 not matter what, but especially if you\u2019re a first-hand witness to (and participant in) a matter of public concern. \u00a0<\/p>\n

The government does not get to threaten criminal prosecution for discussing a matter if public concern.\u00a0 Even stolen top secret documents are lawful to publish. See New York Times Co. v. United States<\/em>, 403 U.S. 713 (1971); Branzburg v. Hayes<\/em>, 408 U.S. 665, 727 (1972) (\u201cthe right to publish is central to the First Amendment and basic to the existence of constitutional democracy.\u201d). If one can publish The Pentagon Papers, Ms. Gomez can talk about her experience. \u00a0<\/p>\n

This First Amendment violation was so grossly out of bounds, she should sue the living hell out of whichever agency threatened her.\u00a0 This is a clear example of retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment protected conduct. \u00a0<\/p>\n

To show First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (1) that \u201che or she engaged in constitutionally protected conduct\u201d; (2) that \u201che or she was subjected to an adverse action by the defendant\u201d; and (3) that \u201cthe protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.\u201d David B. v. Esposito<\/em>, 675 F.3d 26, 43 (1st Cir. 2012). An adverse action is one that \u201cviewed objectively \u2026 would have a chilling effect on [the plaintiff\u2019s] exercise of First Amendment rights,\u201d Barton v. Clancy<\/em>, 632 F.3d 9, 29 & n.19 (1st Cir. 2011), or that \u201cwould deter a reasonably hardy person from exercising his or her constitutional rights.\u201d D.B., 675 F.3d at 43 n.11. <\/p>\n

\u201c[T]he First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions \u2026 for speaking out.\u201d Hartman v. Moore<\/em>, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006); see also Perry v. Sindermann<\/em>, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972). The First Amendment retaliation doctrine addresses \u201cconstitutional violations may arise from the deterrent, or \u2018chilling,\u2019 effect of governmental efforts that fall short of a direct prohibition against the exercise of First Amendment rights.\u201d Bd. of Cty. Comm\u2019rs, Wabaunsee Cty., Kan. v. Umbehr<\/em>, 518 U.S. 668, 674 (1996).\u00a0<\/p>\n

Ms. Gomez did, indeed stop talking to the press for a period of time \u2014 fearing the threats that law enforcement would consider this to be a probation violation.\u00a0 Reportedly, a judge told her that her probation would actually be shortened, as a reward for her bravery.\u00a0 (source<\/a>)\u00a0 I am not sure how that might have happened, and there are moving parts in this story that are unclear. \u00a0But still, I can think of few clearer First Amendment violations than this. <\/p>\n

The deprivation of First Amendment rights, even for a short period of time, is intolerable \u2014 especially when the government is threatening criminal prosecution for the exercise of those rights. \u00a0And this is especially so when someone is a participant in a matter of public concern, discussing what she saw with her own eyes and ears. <\/p>\n

Insert the sound of a screeching eagle, here. <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\tThis entry was posted on Sunday, June 5th, 2022 at 12:21 pm and is filed under misc<\/a>.\t\t\t\t\tYou can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0<\/a> feed.
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBoth comments and pings are currently closed.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t<\/small>\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n