Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Monday, May 6, 2024

Woman booted from post for not denouncing Antifa loses lawsuit

Federal Court
General court 09

shutterstock.com

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by a woman who said she was ordered to publicly denounce the activist group Antifa or be removed from a political position in Huntington Beach, Calif.

Plaintiff Shayna Lathus is appealing the Sept. 29 order of Los Angeles judge Stanley Blumenfield, who wrote that Lathus failed to allege her freedom of speech rights were violated by Huntington Beach Mayor Kim Carr.

Carr bested Lathus in a city council election in 2018 and afterward appointed Lathus to the city’s Citizen Participation Advisory Board. Carr eventually became mayor.

Trouble began between the two when Lathus was photographed next to Antifa members at an immigration rally in 2019.

Carr told Lathus to denounce Antifa on social media, Lathus’ lawsuit says. Lathus posted that she supports law enforcement officers and immigrants’ rights and was not aware Antifa would be present at the rally.

Carr allegedly told Lathus that the post didn’t go far enough and announced on Twitter that she was removing Lathus from her post, the lawsuit says – “Those who do not immediately denounce hateful, violent groups do not share my values and will not be a part of my team.”

Huntington Beach code allows councilmembers to appoint one citizen as “his or her proxy” to the CPAB, the city says. Carr was right to remove a proxy whose political views didn’t align with hers, it says.

“Carr presented Plaintiff with a choice: provide a statement denouncing Antifa or resign,” Judge Blumenfield wrote.

“From a First Amendment standpoint, the option of a compelled statement or forced resignation was no worse than no option at all (i.e., forced resignation).  Or, at least, Plaintiff has not provided any reason to suggest that being presented with an option in her circumstances changes the constitutional calculus.

“Nor would it appear to have that effect. The principles applied in Blair do not seem to rest on any distinction between restricted and compelled speech. It is the context of appointing an individual to a political post for which the appointing politician is publicly accountable that makes the difference.”

More News