[Peace-discuss] Any predictions on this pending free speech lawsuit?

[J.B. Nicholson]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/1/dc-sued-over-black-lives-matter-painted-city-stree/

> Judicial Watch went to court Wednesday demanding access to paint the streets of
> Washington with its own political message after the city wrote “Black Lives
> Matter” on one street and allowed protesters to paint “Defund the Police” next to
> it.
> 
> The conservative group said the city has effectively turned its roadways into a
> public forum, and so it must allow those with differing viewpoints than BLM
> protesters to have the same access, or else it’s violating the First Amendment.
> 
> Judicial Watch said it wants to paint its own motto, “Because No One is Above the
> Law.”
> 
> “We have been patient. We also have been flexible. We have stated our willingness
> to paint our motto at a different location if street closure is necessary and the
> city is unwilling to close our chosen location,” the group told the city. “All we
> ask is that we be afforded the same opportunity to paint our message on a DC
> street that has been afforded the painters on 16th Street.”
> 
> Neither the office of Mayor Muriel Bowser nor Attorney General Karl Racine
> returned messages about the challenge.
[...]

> The group said it first asked permission on June 10, four days after the
> protesters added their message to 16th Street. Interim Deputy Mayor John
> Falcicchio responded two days later saying it would conflict with road markings.
> He said the 16th Street paintings were OK because those blocks of the street are
> closed.
> 
> Judicial Watch then asked for access to a similar closed street. Mr. Falcicchio
> told them to submit an application for a public space permit. Judicial Watch said
> those permits govern a parade or some other event, but not painting.
> 
> Indeed, when the group inquired with the city’s permitting office it says it was
> told there was no such road-painting permit available.
> 
> “We would gladly follow the rules if there were any. We are left with the firm
> conviction that the process — to the extent there is one — is arbitrary and favors
> only one viewpoint, that which is currently being expressed on 16th Street,”
> Judicial Watch said.

Any predictions on how this will be resolved?

-J