In addition to the NH ACLU filing an amicus brief in the Robin Hood case, Robin Hooders’ free-speech attorney Jon Meyer has also filed his brief in the case. As always, the award-winning attorney excoriates and embarrasses the “city’s” outrageous, dangerous, and illegal positions and demands.
In it, he argues that government workers, including parking enforcers, have no right to be left alone:
Plaintiff’s assertion of a public employee right to be left alone has no legal basis, particularly as applied to political speech on public sidewalks, and does not trump the right of protestors to express their message at close range or from afar.
The demands of the “City” are so dangerous, Meyer argues it’s critical the court reject them:
From the perspective of protecting constitutional rights, deciding this case as a matter of law is of critical importance in reaffirming that peaceful political demonstrations in public forums are protected from tort liability, in sparing demonstrators from the burden of having to go through a trial, and in insulating political speech from the chilling effect of potential financial liability.
The “City” people are not subject to immunity from being persuaded to quit their immoral jobs:
Indeed, the recruitment and job placement industry would be decimated if encouraging an employee at will to leave his or her position were determined to be a tort. If there is a privilege to persuade a person in an employment at will relationship to change jobs for economic reasons, it follows that there is the same right to engage in political persuasion.
Meyer even calls the “city” out on their seemingly noble intention of protecting their employees:
The City’s claim to be acting on its employee’s behalf is particularly questionable given the fact that the PEO’s are a member of a union responsible for their representation.
He points out that article eight of the NH Constitution’s Bill of Rights, that which says government should be open and accountable, trumps the desire of the parking enforcers to have a stress-free job:
From the perspective of the government employee, public scrutiny, particularly when it occurs on a daily basis through the use of videotaping and other recording devices, and being followed around may well be stressful and upsetting as alleged by the City in this case. That is in the very nature of being held accountable, and cannot be proscribed without vitiating the essence and purpose of Article 8.
Meyer also shows clearly how absurd the city’s demands are, and how devastating to free speech a decision in their favor would be:
Under the City’s theory, any abortion protestor who attempted to persuade a woman not to enter a clinic could be sued for interfering with the contractual relations between that woman and the clinic. Any animal rights demonstrator who tried to persuade a would-be patron from entering a McDonald’s could similarly be sued forinterfering with the contractual or prospective contractual relations between the restaurant and the customer. Determining whether demonstrations or other speech were proper or improper within the meaning of tort law would become a chilling prerequisite to almost all political expression.
Hilariously, Meyer compares the city of Keene’s claim that their employees have a right to be left alone to the former Soviet Union:
And the claim that public employees have the “right to be left alone and the right to peace and tranquility while acting as government officials,” has no application to any political or legal system short of the former Soviet Union.
lol, go Jon Meyer! Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest.
