posted by iclfan2It was not.
It was all day yesterday and earlier today as typical with a story of that magnitude.
posted by iclfan2You don’t get to protest supreme court justices you idiot. I laugh everyday at the thought you think you’re a moderate. You’re a lib like all of your friends. Still funny you don’t see it
You know what, you are correct and I am wrong. I assumed, like most public officials, you could protest outside their home. But, there is a law that prohibits that after further review.
That makes Biden's and Democrats statements in support of those protests outside the house wrong.
Missed that one.
posted by ptown_trojans_1You know what, you are correct and I am wrong. I assumed, like most public officials, you could protest outside their home. But, there is a law that prohibits that after further review.
That makes Biden's and Democrats statements in support of those protests outside the house wrong.
Missed that one.
I’m sorry for calling you an idiot as you’re obviously educated. But some of the news sources are just frustrating. The problem is there is never going to be a middle ground.
posted by ptown_trojans_1It is not illegal to protest on a sidewalk, peacefully, which is what they were doing.
Were you referring to violence? I assumed so, given the news yesterday. So, if you were not, my bad.
I do hope you are not lumping in people that were protesting peacefully with the crazy that was arrested.
It is not legal to protest on a sidewalk in front of a justices house with the intent to change/intimidate a ruling. It’s a federal crime.
You couldn’t be more wrong, again.
posted by jmogIt is not legal to protest on a sidewalk in front of a justices house with the intent to change/intimidate a ruling. It’s a federal crime.
Interestingly enough, I forget who it was but I believe a conservative legal scholar the other day was saying the constitutionality of that law might not pass muster.
Certainly the right to protest is fundamental to free speech. It's protected speech. And it can be argued people have a right to be heard and express their views. Can't just assume the exercise of those rights defaults to intimidation or coercion.
Protests outside the court I don't think anyone disagrees are plainly constitutional. I don't think protesting outside someone's home, for any reason, should be tolerated (consider the neighbors, for starters). But I don't think that's inherently illegal, as it was repeatedly tested [without recourse] during the summer of BLM.
Just saying if you can protest outside the Governor's home, it's seems like there should be a way to do it legally outside a SCOTUS justice home. And it's arguably no different if the duly-elected Governor is about to sign a controversial bill. I don't agree with either, but I'm not sure where the law or constitution could make a distinction.
posted by gutInterestingly enough, I forget who it was but I believe a conservative legal scholar the other day was saying the constitutionality of that law might not pass muster.
Certainly the right to protest is fundamental to free speech. It's protected speech. And it can be argued people have a right to be heard and express their views. Can't just assume the exercise of those rights defaults to intimidation or coercion.
Protests outside the court I don't think anyone disagrees are plainly constitutional. I don't think protesting outside someone's home, for any reason, should be tolerated (consider the neighbors, for starters). But I don't think that's inherently illegal, as it was repeatedly tested [without recourse] during the summer of BLM.
Just saying if you can protest outside the Governor's home, it's seems like there should be a way to do it legally outside a SCOTUS justice home. And it's arguably no different if the duly-elected Governor is about to sign a controversial bill. I don't agree with either, but I'm not sure where the law or constitution could make a distinction.
Yeah, I just assumed Justices were like other public figures, and nope that is not the case.
I also saw where it was questionable if it could hold up, but technically it is illegal.
You mentioned the summer of BLM, I would also say anti-COVID protests at like Amy Acton's house.
I'm with you in your last point as well.
posted by iclfan2I’m sorry for calling you an idiot as you’re obviously educated. But some of the news sources are just frustrating. The problem is there is never going to be a middle ground.
All good.
Maybe not a middle ground, but at least understanding someone's perspective.
posted by iclfan2I have Twitter, dummy. You still fail to mention how fucked up that is. You’re a super lib and somehow think you aren’t. Lawls.
Lol u only agree with Twitter when it fits you btw
posted by geeblockLol u only agree with Twitter when it fits you btw
Kind of like you and anything that doesn't support blacks as victims.
Chicago says hello.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Did they? It was still on the front page of new sites and in the news.
Which sites? I checked numerous liberal leaning media sites and it was nowhere to be found on their front page. To be fair, I checked about 9 hours after the story came out. Obviously it’s time to move on after 9 hours.
I love how the left legitimately believes there is no media bias.
posted by gutKind of like you and anything that doesn't support blacks as victims.
Chicago says hello.
Chicago. The train that is never late
posted by gutInterestingly enough, I forget who it was but I believe a conservative legal scholar the other day was saying the constitutionality of that law might not pass muster.
Certainly the right to protest is fundamental to free speech. It's protected speech. And it can be argued people have a right to be heard and express their views. Can't just assume the exercise of those rights defaults to intimidation or coercion.
Protests outside the court I don't think anyone disagrees are plainly constitutional. I don't think protesting outside someone's home, for any reason, should be tolerated (consider the neighbors, for starters). But I don't think that's inherently illegal, as it was repeatedly tested [without recourse] during the summer of BLM.
Just saying if you can protest outside the Governor's home, it's seems like there should be a way to do it legally outside a SCOTUS justice home. And it's arguably no different if the duly-elected Governor is about to sign a controversial bill. I don't agree with either, but I'm not sure where the law or constitution could make a distinction.
Fully agree. The peaceful protests should occur near the place of work for the justices, judges, and politicians; never, ever at their homes.
posted by gutSo apparently the Dems hired a tv producer for the prime time kangaroo court tonight. Every major network is covering it (surprisingly including Fox, probably to spin and deflect for their viewers).
This is a new low in kabuki theater. Hard to imagine if things were reversed that the networks would devote primetime coverage. To be fair, I think almost every network otherwise had re-runs tonight.
But polling seems to indicate people aren't that concerned with the unscheduled tour on Jan. 6. I just can't see this event taking place if the media was remotely fair and impartial.
Primetime, made-for-TV, mob justice. I sure hope we can turn this ship around; where we're headed is not a good place, at all.
posted by geeblockChicago. The train that is never late
Your train hasn't been on time your entire life, has it?
posted by ptown_trojans_1Come on Google it.
OK.
posted by gutYour train hasn't been on time your entire life, has it?
Sick burn.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537055474549264384
Bingo. Climate Marxists won't like this account.
Dumbasses. Cue the “but free speech” people.
Some news: SpaceX investigated the employees who wrote and distributed an open letter criticizing Elon Musk's Twitter habit. Some of those employees have been fired. https://t.co/I68H1TaXAj
— Ryan Mac 🙃 (@RMac18) June 17, 2022
posted by iclfan2Dumbasses. Cue the “but free speech” people.
Some news: SpaceX investigated the employees who wrote and distributed an open letter criticizing Elon Musk's Twitter habit. Some of those employees have been fired. https://t.co/I68H1TaXAj
— Ryan Mac 🙃 (@RMac18) June 17, 2022
Not sure if this even belongs in the progressive thread because technically it seems progressives would support the letter in question and the right would disagree. Anyway I don’t know where u work but would you be able to circulate how your boss sucked and pass it around the company for others to sign and stay employed ? Ur whole post seems flawed
Dude, the progressives are the idiots that wrote the letter. They got rightfully fired. The progressive dumbasses in life and on Twitter are going to try (and did) argue it was free speech, when it is not. Thought it was pretty obvious.
posted by geeblockNot sure if this even belongs in the progressive thread because technically it seems progressives would support the letter in question and the right would disagree. Anyway I don’t know where u work but would you be able to circulate how your boss sucked and pass it around the company for others to sign and stay employed ? Ur whole post seems flawed
I think you misread his post and intent.
posted by jmogI think you misread his post and intent.
Looks like it. I see it now.
posted by iclfan2Dude, the progressives are the idiots that wrote the letter. They got rightfully fired. The progressive dumbasses in life and on Twitter are going to try (and did) argue it was free speech, when it is not. Thought it was pretty obvious.
It's hard to fathom how small your "bubble" would have to be to think you could write that letter and not get fired.
Similar just happened to a NYT journo that kept trashing management on Twitter for how it chose to discipline a couple of writers. Despite being an unhinged lunatic, I was still surprised NYT had the guts to fire her.
posted by gutIt's hard to fathom how small your "bubble" would have to be to think you could write that letter and not get fired.
Similar just happened to a NYT journo that kept trashing management on Twitter for how it chose to discipline a couple of writers. Despite being an unhinged lunatic, I was still surprised NYT had the guts to fire her.
Think it was the Washington Post, if you're talking about that Felicia chick who seems to be a total nightmare for anyone, anywhere to associate with for any time. I mean, demanding discipline against a co-worker for retweeting a throwaway joke (all women are bi -- either polar or sexual) and then going on a Twitter rampage against the whole company when another co-worker or two took the "maybe you should step back and chill a bit" tactic towards her is definitely something. That gets even more wacky when you consider that the reporter she wanted destroyed for retweeting a joke had apparently been one of her strongest supporters a ways back when she was pissed off about something else happening there.
Libs biiiiig mad today!! AOC and others already calling for “insurrections”. Get your popcorn ready.