Auraria Campus Police violated First Amendment rights during Denver protest arrest, claims new lawsuit
war in Gaza
.
In the spring of 2024,
protestors descended upon campuses
across the country and the world, including the
Auraria Campus in Denver
, which houses campuses for the University of Colorado Denver, Community College of Denver, and Metropolitan State University of Denver.
They set up an encampment on the Tivoli quad, which violates campus policy. On April 26, Auraria Campus Police started arresting people for trespassing.
Alex Boodrookas is an assistant professor of history at MSU Denver. He says he was leaving a meeting when he saw the scene unfolding. He says he sat with the students to try to deescalate the situation but was arrested.
CU Boulder alumni Sarah Napier was also arrested. She says she was protesting but not camping. They're two of eight people now suing Auraria Police Chief Jason Mollendor and six other officers, with the help of lawyers from Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC, accusing the officers of violating their First Amendment rights.
"You should be able to peacefully protest," Napier told CBS News Colorado. You should be able to, you know, have your First Amendment rights."
They say that Auraria police didn't adequately warn protestors that they would be arresting anyone and, even if they did, their arrests were unjustified because they weren't camping. They allege the arrests were an attempt to silence voices campus officials didn't like.
"The mass arrests that we saw at the encampments last year, like they very much laid the groundwork for what we're seeing today," Boodrookas said.
Both Boodrookas and Napier ultimately had their charges dismissed and their records sealed, but they say the damage was done. They've both faced professional repercussions, but they say this lawsuit isn't about them; it's about making sure free speech is protected.
"I want to make sure that armed riot police don't arrest peaceful student demonstrators on my campus again," Boodrookas said.
On Wednesday, the Auraria Campus released the following statement:
"The Auraria campus has not been served with any civil rights lawsuit related to the events of April 26, 2024. Based on available media reports, it appears that the individuals involved chose to engage with the press prior to notifying either the Auraria Campus administration or the Auraria Campus Police Department.
We are also aware of several misrepresentations reported in today's media coverage. As with any legal matter, Auraria Campus remains committed to following the appropriate legal processes and protocols. We will be prepared to respond accordingly if and when we are served.
Our priority continues to be transparency, accountability, and the safety and well-being of the Auraria Campus community."
The lawsuit was filed at 9 a.m. on Wednesday in Denver District Court and asks for a jury trial, as well as punitive, compensatory, and economic damages.
"Rather than respecting the constitutional rights of those gathered, Auraria Campus Police Department officers abrogated well-established First Amendment rights through intimidation and mass arrests," it states, in part. "Protesters who peacefully linked arms in solidarity were trapped and encircled by riot police, physically prevented from leaving before officers began making arrests."
"If we fail to challenge this now, we risk normalizing the suppression of speech whenever it becomes inconvenient," Azra Taslimi, one of the attorneys representing the protesters, said at a news conference on Wednesday. "Student protest is not a disruption of education, it is a reflection of it. It is civic engagement, it is democracy in action, and it is why we must protect it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
5 hours ago
- CNBC
New York sued by National Retail Federation over surveillance pricing law
New York state was sued on Wednesday by the National Retail Federation over a new law requiring retailers to tell customers when their personal data are being used to set prices, known as surveillance pricing. The world's largest retail trade group said New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, which would take effect on July 8, violates many members' First Amendment free speech rights. Governor Kathy Hochul signed the first-in-the-nation law in May, saying the practice of charging different prices based on customers' willingness to pay was "opaque," and prevented those customers from comparison shopping. In its complaint filed in Manhattan federal court, the National Retail Federation objected to requiring members to affix "misleading and ominous" warnings to prices set by algorithms linked to customer data. It said the law reflected "speculative fear" of price gouging, even though retailers use algorithms to offer promotions and reward customer loyalty, sometimes resulting in lower prices. According to the complaint, the law violates the U.S. Constitution by compelling a broad range of retailers to express misleading "government-scripted opinion" without justification, or face potential civil fines of $1,000 per violation. The only defendant is state Attorney General Letitia James, who enforces New York laws. Her office did not immediately respond to requests for comment after business hours. Hochul's office did not immediately respond to a similar request. In January, a divided Federal Trade Commission issued a study on surveillance pricing, saying location data and online browsing histories could permit retailers to "target" individual consumers with different prices for the same products. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, then a commissioner, dissented from issuing the study, saying it was rushed out three days before Donald Trump succeeded Joe Biden as U.S. president to meet a "nakedly political deadline."
Atlantic
11 hours ago
- Atlantic
Welcome to the Mafia Presidency
Theoretically, it's illegal for the president to accept or solicit bribes. The plain language of the statute is perfectly clear: It is a crime for a public official to seek or receive 'anything of value' in return for 'being influenced in the performance of any official ac t.' The prohibition applies whether the public official seeks or receives the bribe personally or on behalf of 'any other person or entity.' As I said: theoretically. On Tuesday, the media-and-entertainment conglomerate Paramount announced a $16 million payment to President Donald Trump's future presidential library. The payment settled a lawsuit that Trump had filed against the Paramount-owned broadcaster CBS because he was unhappy with the way the network had edited an election-season interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump's lawsuit was about as meritless as a lawsuit can be, for reasons I'll explain shortly. If CBS were a freestanding news organization, it would have fought the case and won. But like the Disney-owned network ABC, which also paid off Trump for an almost equally frivolous lawsuit, CBS belongs to a parent corporation with regulatory business before Trump-appointed agencies. Paramount is pursuing an $8 billion merger that requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission. In November 2024, then-incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr warned that merger approval would depend on satisfying Trump's claims against CBS. Carr told the Fox News interviewer Dana Perino, 'I'm pretty confident that that news-distortion complaint over the 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of that transaction.' 'News-distortion complaint?' What's that? Nearly a century ago, in 1927, Congress empowered a new Federal Radio Commission to police the accuracy of news broadcasts. In the preceding decades, the airwaves had become a chaos of transmissions interfering with one another. The right to use any particular frequency was a valuable concession from the federal government, the owner on the public's behalf of the nation's airwaves. Congress felt that it could impose conditions in return for such concessions. One condition was a duty to meet public-interest standards in broadcast content, which included giving equal time to opposing political candidates in an election. In 1934, the Federal Radio Commission evolved into the Federal Communications Commission. As television technology spread, so did the FCC's ambition to police the new medium, resulting in 1949 with its power to compel the fairness doctrine on ' all discussion of issues of importance to the public.' The fact that opinions can differ about what counts as 'accuracy' and what counts as 'distortion' rapidly became obvious. Government efforts to police the boundary between fair reporting and unfair scurrility create conflicts with First Amendment rights. For print media, the courts have been very clear: Editing, even arguably unfair editing, is protected free speech, subject only to the laws of defamation. In the 1960s and '70s, the FCC groped its way toward a similar rule for broadcast media. Interestingly, some of the crucial milestones involved CBS News. In the early days of color television, CBS News pioneered the use of aggressive editing to tell powerful stories in dramatic ways. In 1971, for example, CBS broadcast a documentary, The Selling of the Pentagon, that accused the Department of Defense of manipulating public opinion. To amplify the argument, the producers cut and reassembled questions and answers. Some of the affected individuals filed complaints against CBS, and the matter was taken up by members of Congress. Yet the FCC declined to get involved in the case on free-speech grounds. Before the end of the first Nixon administration, the FCC had generated a series of precedents that more or less nullified the agency's Calvin Coolidge–era status as a monitor of broadcast accuracy and a potential censor. The whole issue soon became moot, because the FCC had no jurisdiction over cable television or the internet. As Americans drew more of their information from sources outside the FCC's domain, the very idea of content regulation by the agency came to seem absurd to all parties, including the FCC itself. Who would think of invoking a doctrine that originated in 1927 to police speech in the 21st century? Then came Trump and the loyalty-above-law appointees of his second term. Evident from the Trump legal filing against CBS is that not even the president's own lawyers took his complaint seriously. Three whopping clues give away the game about the filing's farcicality. The first is where the lawsuit was brought: the Amarillo division of the U.S. district court for the northern district of Texas. CBS is not domiciled in Amarillo. Neither is Trump or Harris or any person significantly connected with the 60 Minutes segment. What is located in Amarillo is America's premier pick for right-wing forum-shopping, a practice criticized not only by liberal counterparties but also, at least implicitly, by The Wall Street Journal and National Review. Amarillo is the court where a partisan-conservative plaintiff goes with a case that would be summarily thrown out elsewhere. The next clue is the language of the filing, which reads like direct dictation from the president: As President Trump stated, and as made crystal clear in the video he referenced and attached, 'A giant Fake News Scam by 60 Minutes & CBS. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election interference. She is a Moron, and the Fake News Media wants to hide that fact. AN UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!! The Dems got them to do this and should be forced to concede the election? WOW!' See President Donald J. Trump, TRUTH SOCIAL (Oct. 10, 2024). And so on, through 65 paragraphs of irrelevant name-calling and Trump-quoting obsequiousness. The final clue lies in the carelessness of the complaint's quoted sources, two of which actually argue against the Trump claim. A cited law-review article concluded that 'the reinvented news distortion doctrine would undermine the very democratic norms marshaled in its defense.' Similarly, an FCC decision referenced found against taking action (in another case involving CBS)—explicitly on free-speech grounds: 'In this democracy, no government agency can authenticate the news, or should try to do so.' One has to wonder whether Trump's lawyers even read the texts they cited. The complaint's flimsy legal basis—including Trump's claim of standing under a Texas consumer-protection law—indicates its pure-nuisance quality. And yet, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a case that it could almost certainly have won for a fraction of the price. U.S. law forbids both accepting a bribe and soliciting a bribe, yet they're not exactly the same offense. There is an important difference between a police officer who takes money to let a criminal escape and a police officer who uses the threat of arrest to extort money from an innocent citizen. Paramount did not come up with the idea to pay Trump $16 million; Trump decided to squeeze Paramount for the money. What's going on here is extortion—and it does not get any less extortionate for being laundered through Trump's hypothetical future library. A systematic pattern has emerged: shakedowns of law firms, business corporations, and media companies for the enrichment of Trump, his family, and his political allies. Every time targets yield, they create an incentive for Trump to repeat the shakedown on another victim.
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Native American group joins fight against NY's logo ban in public schools
An anti-woke Native American organization is joining the fight against New York State's ban on tribal-themed names and logos in public schools, The Post has learned. The Native American Guardians Association filed a preliminary injunction against the state Board of Regents — as its representative said members are tired of people telling Native Americans how they should view their own culture. 'It violates the First Amendment,' said Chip Paterson, an attorney for the association. 3 The Post has learned that The Native American Guardians Association has filed a preliminary injunction against the New York Board of Regents' ban on Native American team names and logos in public schools. REUTERS 'You're banning words, you're banning phrases, you are banning ideas.' 'It's completely against both the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment,' he told The Post. 'Obviously, the Board of Regents is a state agency, and so it's bound by the US Constitution.' The group, which consists of 85,000 Native Americans across the country, is also pressing New York on violations of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause from racial classifications, according to their legal counsel. 3 An attorney for the organization, Chip Paterson, claims, 'It violates the First Amendment.' Heather Khalifa for the NY Post Public schools that don't comply with the logo ban face the loss of state funding and other sanctions. NAGA has been fiercely opposed to the 2023 ban, as vocal supporters of the Massapequa Chiefs in keeping its team name, since the issue exploded earlier this year when President Trump sided with the town. Representatives from the association stood alongside Secretary of Education Linda McMahon when she toured Massapequa High School in May and announced that she viewed the ban as a Title VI civil rights violation — one now being pursued by the Justice Department. Meanwhile, Petersen said his clients represent 'the silent majority' among Native Americans who favor their culture being represented in names like Chiefs, Warriors and Thunderbirds. The latter two are under siege on Long Island in the districts of Wantagh and Connetquot. He also pointed to a 2016 poll showing that nine in 10 Native Americans are not offended by the term 'Redskins.' 'What they're doing is they're trying to erase history…a key piece of American culture,' he said. 'My clients are tired of it. They're tired of people pretending to speak for the Native American population — and they're tired of people trying to erase their history. It's unconstitutional, and we're not gonna put up with it.' 3 The group consists of 85,000 Native Americans across the nation, as the latest legal action in New York State involves Massapequa High School, as they fight against a rebrand that taxpayers say could cost them up to $1 million. Heather Khalifa for the NY Post The latest legal action has Chiefs Nation in Massapequa eager to fight against a rebrand, which school officials say could cost taxpayers $1 million. The Long Island town entered into a contract with NAGA in May, in which the group approved the district's use of Chiefs and committed to teaching additional curriculum on Native American history. 'In Massapequa, we're proud to stand by our Native American history and partners,' said school board president Kerry Wachter, who has been involved in legal action against New York as well. 'The NAGA's lawsuit makes it unequivocally clear: the state's Native American Ban discriminates against Native Americans.' Massapequa lawyer Oliver Roberts added that the 'sad and disgraceful' ban should and will be invalidated by the court proceedings. New York has already begun softening its position in Connetquot, where a rebrand from Thunderbirds is estimated to cost the district more than $23 million. A compromise has been floated between the state and the school to condense its team name to 'T-Birds' — a phrase the school was previously told was included in the ban. 'It's not even a state law. It's an ordinance,' Petersen said of the controversial ban. 'It could be as innocuous as Thunderbirds and as a result, you could lose your school funding…I just think that people have had it with this.'
