Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Freedom of speech/religion/assembly vs. keeping the peace

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Re: Freedom of speech/religion/assembly vs. keeping the peace

    Originally posted by Quetzal View Post
    If they pulled the shit they do down my end, they'd have their heads caved in. I look forward to the day they piss off the wrong people. I'd be surprised if they don't already get seven shades of shit kicked out of them on a regular basis there. I imagine it's how they make money, through assault lawsuits.
    Sometimes violence is necessary to cull the scum off the top. I'm up for it.
    Satan is my spirit animal

    Comment


      #32
      Re: Freedom of speech/religion/assembly vs. keeping the peace

      WBC is a poor example as supposedly they not only protest but also do so in the hopes people will respond and take physical action against them so they can in turn take legal action against them for profit. Granted that might just be more urban legend stuff on their part but it seems they are quick to back water when certain groups show up to oppose them and threaten to do them bodily harm if they stay.

      My opinion is if they claim the right to protest and be disruptive to make their point then I have the right to equally take action against them in a manner that best conveys my attitude and perspective towards a given attitude. Whether it be as minor as a verbal statement or written support / opposition to physical means of expressing things.
      I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!

      Comment


        #33
        Re: Freedom of speech/religion/assembly vs. keeping the peace

        Originally posted by monsno_leedra View Post
        WBC is a poor example as supposedly they not only protest but also do so in the hopes people will respond and take physical action against them so they can in turn take legal action against them for profit. Granted that might just be more urban legend stuff on their part but it seems they are quick to back water when certain groups show up to oppose them and threaten to do them bodily harm if they stay.

        My opinion is if they claim the right to protest and be disruptive to make their point then I have the right to equally take action against them in a manner that best conveys my attitude and perspective towards a given attitude. Whether it be as minor as a verbal statement or written support / opposition to physical means of expressing things.
        The problem is that physical action can cause riots, which -is- a public disruption issue. Protesting is one thing, but protests meant to provoke action are a problem and I have no problem with police pressing charges in those cases.

        Over here, Neo-Nazis often get those kinds of charges. Now, Neo-Nazis in general can often cause riots just for showing up, because people really hate them and some people aren't opposed to throwing bottles at them for being Nazis, so their rallies and marches tend to have some pretty heavy police presence. But they don't usually get arrested just for showing up (unless they break the anti-Nazi laws, which are there for a pretty solid reason and usually cover hate speech that should be banned anyway). However, they tend to cross the line and provoke a good chunk of the problems that a lot of those events cause. Fair enough, in my opinion. If you intentionally cause a riot, or try to start a riot, charges are justified.

        I think that's why Thal's comment was a good question. In this case, simply carrying out this unorthodox protest isn't grounds to charge them with anything, but if they were harassing people or trying to provoke them, that's a different matter.

        Comment

        Working...
        X