Lawyers at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression are representing DIAG pro bono in the kind of case the ACLU was formed to prosecute: remember free speech?
Very interesting lawsuit for FIRE - I try really hard to see the other side of a case, and I'm just not seeing the defense here. Is the issue the potential for confusion in the public as to whether an organization using the word "democrat" or "republican" actually is the Party itself? If that's their argument, which could be a valid reason to put some limits on the use of the words in a business name, the context of this case makes it 100% clear that DIAG - a group of democrats who disagree with the position taken by the Democratic Party - cannot possibly be the Party with which it disagrees. I can't think of any other reasons to limit the ability to use the word "democrat," and, absent a compelling interest in limiting its use, I think they will lose.
Bonus, as noted by Susan McCarthy: DIAG is in the news and Jenny is a great spokesperson so - YAY!!!
I like that legal analysis, thanks. I can only guess, but it seems possible that some hack thought it would please the boss if they told us to take a hike. What were we going to do, sue the boss?? Yeah right. 🥹
Every time you think Democrats can't dig themselves into an even deeper hole , they find a bigger shovel. This is their version of , "How many steps before the queen"? and if you forget to ask "may I"? you have to go back to the starting line.
It's hard to believe this is real , but when you consider they are clueless as to what a woman is , it's completely in character. The bigger concern is that Democrats as we once knew them no longer exist. The name is still there , but t's been the invasion of the body snatchers. They have become empty shells.
Thank you, Illinois, for a ridiculous law that brought attention to DI-AG and enabled Jenny Poyer Ackerman to eloquently express DI-AG's sensible views in the Chicago Tribune. I'm sure some normie Dems will read that piece and think, "Huh. This Poyer Ackerman chick makes a lot of sense. I should check this DI-AG organization out." I hope so, anyway.
I don’t understand. The law says people can only call themselves Democrats if the Democrat party allows them to? How does Illinois defend this? By saying “Democrat” is a trademark? Would have appreciated a bit more explanation in the article because this sounds totally nuts (but we know everything trans is nuts).
It’s a fair question but I thought the reporter actually went a long way toward answering it. The rule is a dumb relic, and I think IL blundered bigly when they invoked it with us. Whatever press we get is nothing but downside for trans inc., whose midwest HQ is housed in the IL gov’s mansion.
They surely know they have no case and they just want to weaken and drain resources of the opponent. War without bombs and guns. I find it very frightening.
I have needed and sought legal help from an org such as FIRE for years but they all declined mine (including FIRE) because they are inundated with requests and mine is criminal which they are not set up for. They do civil cases. (Other factors too, like state/location were reasons I couldn’t get pro bono help.)
My point is there are many more possible lawsuits than there are resources to file them in terms of money and specialist lawyers / nonprofit constitutional rights organizations.
👏
This is terrific news, and DIAG could not hope for a better spokesperson than you. The quote from you is pitch perfect. 🎩, my friend. Keep going!
Very interesting lawsuit for FIRE - I try really hard to see the other side of a case, and I'm just not seeing the defense here. Is the issue the potential for confusion in the public as to whether an organization using the word "democrat" or "republican" actually is the Party itself? If that's their argument, which could be a valid reason to put some limits on the use of the words in a business name, the context of this case makes it 100% clear that DIAG - a group of democrats who disagree with the position taken by the Democratic Party - cannot possibly be the Party with which it disagrees. I can't think of any other reasons to limit the ability to use the word "democrat," and, absent a compelling interest in limiting its use, I think they will lose.
Bonus, as noted by Susan McCarthy: DIAG is in the news and Jenny is a great spokesperson so - YAY!!!
I like that legal analysis, thanks. I can only guess, but it seems possible that some hack thought it would please the boss if they told us to take a hike. What were we going to do, sue the boss?? Yeah right. 🥹
Every time you think Democrats can't dig themselves into an even deeper hole , they find a bigger shovel. This is their version of , "How many steps before the queen"? and if you forget to ask "may I"? you have to go back to the starting line.
It's hard to believe this is real , but when you consider they are clueless as to what a woman is , it's completely in character. The bigger concern is that Democrats as we once knew them no longer exist. The name is still there , but t's been the invasion of the body snatchers. They have become empty shells.
That one was hard to ‘like,’ but I couldn’t have said it better.
Thank you, Illinois, for a ridiculous law that brought attention to DI-AG and enabled Jenny Poyer Ackerman to eloquently express DI-AG's sensible views in the Chicago Tribune. I'm sure some normie Dems will read that piece and think, "Huh. This Poyer Ackerman chick makes a lot of sense. I should check this DI-AG organization out." I hope so, anyway.
🙏🙏🙏 That would be a big pay-out for a one-sentence quote, but I love that you typed it here — thank you Susan!😅
I don’t understand. The law says people can only call themselves Democrats if the Democrat party allows them to? How does Illinois defend this? By saying “Democrat” is a trademark? Would have appreciated a bit more explanation in the article because this sounds totally nuts (but we know everything trans is nuts).
It’s a fair question but I thought the reporter actually went a long way toward answering it. The rule is a dumb relic, and I think IL blundered bigly when they invoked it with us. Whatever press we get is nothing but downside for trans inc., whose midwest HQ is housed in the IL gov’s mansion.
They surely know they have no case and they just want to weaken and drain resources of the opponent. War without bombs and guns. I find it very frightening.
I have needed and sought legal help from an org such as FIRE for years but they all declined mine (including FIRE) because they are inundated with requests and mine is criminal which they are not set up for. They do civil cases. (Other factors too, like state/location were reasons I couldn’t get pro bono help.)
My point is there are many more possible lawsuits than there are resources to file them in terms of money and specialist lawyers / nonprofit constitutional rights organizations.
DIAG is very lucky and grateful to have them representing us. I hope you find a way forward with your case too.
Thank you!