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

[benenglish]

Reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.

So is comprehensible writing.

The dumpster fire named Twitter is fighting against both.

 

[Talk2Me]

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.

In short it is OK to riot, just don't call it that. Sounds like the street fair in Seattle.

 

[DoubleDuty]

He hit on the head, Democrats are the actual problem.

 

[majormadmax]

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.

@benenglish, in that case, can you remove his name from the threat title? Given the misunderstanding and poor reporting, it would be better to disassociate him from the topic...

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I'm confused, nothing in the thread title is incorrect, is it?

He did bring it to your attention, didn't he, and that's the extent of it?

 

[benenglish]

You'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?

 

[avvidclif]

He did state "Protestors are". He did not state "He recommended" It was clear to me he was stating what they said, note the quote marks, not what he said.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Excellent rewording Ben...

 

[Hoji]

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

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.

 

[Talk2Me]

You'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?

Ben, I don't know where this goes but I think it is important
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/george-floyd-officer-derek-chauvin-security-club-trnd/index.html
Sorry the source is CNN.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It's not new news.
It's been out since the beginning.

 

[Talk2Me]

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.

 

[Axxe55]

I missed it. Either I need to stop drinking or I'm not drinking enough.

Well, I was drinking a bit when I read it the first time. So my reading comprehension might have have been a tad impaired!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[MikeyJ]

In short it is OK to riot, just don't call it that. Sounds like the street fair in Seattle.

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.

 

[satx78247]

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

 

[Axxe55]

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

I think Statute 45-70 is a better one to use in dealing with anyone wanting to deface, or destroy the Alamo!

 

[308nato]

7.62x54 ain't to bad also to get the job done.

 

[seeker_two]

Rule .303....the choice of riot control in the British Empire for a century....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[majormadmax]

Rule .303....the choice of riot control in the British Empire for a century....

I thought that was the Webley...

 

[45tex]

If they read even a little hand-out of history they would love the Alamo
After all it is the perfect example of a big government killing some white guys in a Mexican town. What's to hate?
Some people went there, and did some stuff.
Its a BLM Valhalla.