Reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.
The dumpster fire named Twitter is fighting against both.So is comprehensible writing.
Reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.
The dumpster fire named Twitter is fighting against both.So is comprehensible writing.
In short it is OK to riot, just don't call it that. Sounds like the street fair in Seattle.The conclusion was that the Ohio statute was unconstitutional. But the court summarized its past holdings as follows:
In other words, stating that violence is necessary to effect change is protected, but directing people to "tear down the Alamo" or "tear down Confederate statues" knowing that people will likely do it is not protected speech.
I understand. Barnes and the folks at the Daily Wire tend to talk and tweet like lawyers. That means you really need to read and/or listen like you're autistic, taking them at face value and not reading between the lines...until it's time to read between the lines.
Barnes did a great YouTube live show with Viva Frei (an impressive lawyer from Canada who spends a lot of time puzzling out American legal issues and bringing a sensible outsiders viewpoint) where they examined the appointment of an amicus to the Flynn case. It was hilarious watching Barnes explain how the judge in the case is well known for being far, far from intelligent.
I rarely recommend anyone involve themselves more deeply in social media. However, if anyone cares to hear smart, reasonable lawyers talk about interesting issues, I strongly suggest following both Viva Frei and Robert Barnes on both Twitter and YouTube. When the two of them team up for a live discussion on YouTube, it's a special treat.
All you have to do is run 4 belt feds into the rioters at once and follow through with a front end loader, big hole filled with lime, and some power washers crews to hose everything down after the heavy machinery gets done.Not going to happen. All you gotta do is snipe 1 rioter and the rest will dirty their pants and run away.
Ben, I don't know where this goes but I think it is importantYou're both right. Cam, the title is technically correct but MMM has a good point in that it juxtaposes the name of the blameless lawyer with a statement that makes the blood boil.
I think I'll edit the title for clarity in a way that neither of you will be satisfied with. That's the essence of compromise, right?
I missed it. Either I need to stop drinking or I'm not drinking enough.It's not new news.
It's been out since the beginning.
I missed it. Either I need to stop drinking or I'm not drinking enough.
Not really. In calm times, a statement calling on people to tear down symbols of oppression would likely be protected speech, since the speaker is calling on public officials to remove both physical objects and legal restrictions that are oppressive to a group. But the same statement made during a riot would not be protected, since the speaking knows it's likely that the rioters would actually tear down statues or whatever else they think are symbols of oppression.In short it is OK to riot, just don't call it that. Sounds like the street fair in Seattle.
To All,
IF anyone is STUPID enough to actually try to damage or destroy our Alamo Shrine, they should be dealt with under RULE 7.62x51 & W/O warning.
yours, satx
Rule .303....the choice of riot control in the British Empire for a century....