“Protesters in San Antonio now demanding tearing down The Alamo” warns SA Lawyer Robert Barnes

[majormadmax]

****CORRECTED****

Barnes is not the one calling for people to "take down the Alamo," only spreading the word. It wasn't clear from his Tweet.

That said, there is still a threat to the beloved shrine, and one I do not believe should be taken lightly.

Luckily the CEO of the Alamo posted last night that all was calm at that location.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-...-to-rioters-thinking-about-trashing-the-alamo

 

[Axxe55]

Oh Hell No!

People could die trying to mess with the Alamo.

I hope that idiot goes bankrupt and broke! Phuck him!

 

[Yongxingfree]

Un freaking believable. I don't think this will happen tho

 

[Sam7sf]

No.

 

[popsgarland]

Not going to happen. All you gotta do is snipe 1 rioter and the rest will dirty their pants and run away.

 

[Talk2Me]

Posted as a reply in another thread, but this deserves its own...

Some fat f*** local jackass of a lawyer is calling (i.e. Tweeting) for people to "take down the Alamo."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-...-to-rioters-thinking-about-trashing-the-alamo

He and they have been warned that's probably not a good idea, and I doubt it's anything beyond verbal diarrhea; but that so-called "Trial lawyer. High-profile wins for clients in civil, criminal and constitutional law. Featured in UK Times & AP for political betting successes" should look up Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969) before he makes any more public requests such as that!

OK. I clicked the link to Brandenburg v. Ohio, and I understood most of the words, but for the life me I couldn't tell what the conclusion was.
Hate speech not protected under 1st and 14th Amendments?

 

[2ManyGuns]

As an officer of the law, he should be removed from the bar, license revoked to practice law, this at a minimum.

 

[MikeyJ]

OK. I clicked the link to Brandenburg v. Ohio, and I understood most of the words, but for the life me I couldn't tell what the conclusion was.
Hate speech not protected under 1st and 14th Amendments?

The conclusion was that the Ohio statute was unconstitutional. But the court summarized its past holdings as follows:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

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.

 

[Moonpie]

He's welcome to try.
Go ahead you coward. I dare ya.

 

[Whistler]

First the flag now the Alamo? They're getting dangerously close to a can of whoop ass

 

[BRD@66]

Sounds like an internet troll job to me.

 

[GoPappy]

Somebody needs to put out this message to that jackass: When the first blow is struck against the Alamo, how safe do you think your home and your law office will be?

There are patriots out there that would seek retribution against him. I fear it would not end well for him.

 

[benenglish]

Some fat f*** local jackass of a lawyer is calling (i.e. Tweeting) for people to "take down the Alamo."

As an officer of the law, he should be removed from the bar, license revoked to practice law, this at a minimum.

Sounds like an internet troll job to me.

Somebody needs to put out this message to that jackass: When the first blow is struck against the Alamo, how safe do you think your home and your law office will be?

No.

Wrong.

The attorney posting that tweet is Robert Barnes. He is a certified, on-the-side-of-freedom good guy.

He's not advocating taking down the Alamo. He simply put out a warning about other folks that are calling for taking down the Alamo. He's asking us to all stay alert.

If somebody did attack the Alamo, he'd be a defender.

I suggest folks read his twitter feed. He mostly retweets but right now he's tearing up certain NFL players for kneeling, using their own words to show that their immediate purpose in kneeling is to openly show disrespect to the flag.

 

[majormadmax]

OK, that wasn't initially clear to me, as all I saw was this Tweet...

So I stand corrected, and will modify my original post.

 

[benenglish]

If you want to know how his mind works, consider this tweet from yesterday:

 

[majormadmax]

If you read the article, it wasn't clear about it either...

One social media post that went viral online came from lawyer Robert Barnes, who wrote: “Protesters in San Antonio now demanding tearing down The Alamo.” The tweet had nearly 9,000 retweets several hours after it was posted.

 

[benenglish]

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.

 

[2ManyGuns]

If that is the case, since I do not "twit", or "tweet" or whatever it is called, I withdraw my comment.

 

[avvidclif]

Reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.

 

[Whistler]

So is comprehensible writing.