Dianna Ploss protesting government extremism in the town of Swampscott.

Judge Muzzles Activist Calling Out Tax-funded Race-monger

Free speech took a serious blow in Massachusetts.

A judge in Massachusetts ruled against conservative activist and citizen journalist Dianna Ploss, claiming the First Amendment did not protect her right to strongly criticize a professional race hustler hired by the town of Swampscott if the alleged “victim” claimed to feel “fear.”

The case out of Lynn District Court has important implications for freedom of speech and the right of citizens to criticize the government officials paid by their taxes.

Without ever having met Ploss, professional race-monger Tamy-Fee Meneide, hired by the town of Swampscott to work on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” filed a “harassments prevention” order against Ploss. The judge granted it.

“Ms. Ploss can still have her ideas about Black Lives Matter and do it in her public forum,” District Judge Prince said. “She just can’t do it with targeting Ms. Meneide in this way.”

Among other concerns, Ploss has blasted Meneide for supporting the Marxist-led Black Lives Matter movement. Ploss describes the highly controversial movement, funded by some of America’s largest corporations, as “Burn, Loot, Murder.”

The town’s police chief knelt before Marxists, extremists and race-hustlers.

While protesting regularly against government abuses, Ploss never made any sort of actual threat. However, the alleged “victim” claimed to be in fear because a hammer and sickle was on a poster next to her picture. Apparently the sickle was scary.

During some of her activism, Ploss carried signs suggesting that Meneide, whose official title is “Critical Partner in Anti-Racism,” was affiliated with the Communist Party of China.

Interestingly, immigrants from Communist China to the United States have been sounding the alarm about Critical Race Theory–Meneide’s wheelhouse–and how mass-murdering Communist Chinese dictator Mao Zedong used similar tactics to divide and conquer China.

Judge Prince, who presided over the case, was made aware of case law showing that citizens have a right to criticize government officials, even using heated rhetoric. But she suggested that because Meneide was not elected, that same standard did not apply in this case.

It was not immediately clear if citizens would be allowed to vigorously criticize hypothetical Gulag overseers if the concentration-camp guards were not elected to their position. Police chiefs would also be off limits under the judge’s reasoning.

“A huge injustice occurred today in Massachusetts,” Ploss told The Liberty Sentinel in a statement. “Not only did Judge Prince trample on my First Amendment right to Free Speech, she rang the dinner bell for the violent Marxists and anti-American Savages to continue hunting me.”

Citing the broad implications of the case, Ploss’ attorney promised to appeal.

“The ruling today in Lynn District Court made by District court Judge Prince was extremely wrong and biased,” said attorney Richard C. Chambers, Jr. “The direct testimony from Ms. Meneide corroborated that she was hired by the town of Swampscott, that she receives money and is on its payroll that Dianna is a journalist that she was exercising her First Amendment Rights to politically protest and call out a town employee i.e. official.”

“Ms. Meneide and her witness testified that she had never personally met Diana that she only knew of her from her political rallies and social media posts that there in fact were no ‘racial’ slurs or threats based on race,” the attorney continued.

“It appears to be that Judge Prince did not even read the case I cited which is attached! She failed to follow its precedent and certainly failed to follow the precedent set in New York Times v. Sullivan,” he added. “Namely that Diana’s free speech as a journalist is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

“Its is unbelievable that the Judge failed to apply the law unbiasedly and fairly but moreover that she also failed to dismiss this matter and/or actually allowed the Abuse Prevention Order to be extended!” concluded Chambers. “This ruling sends a ‘chilling effect to all journalists’ and opens up the flood gates for frivolous lawsuits based on emotion and not law and/or fact!”

Ploss said she intends to appeal to ensure that free-speech rights remain protected in Massachusetts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *