Why would freedom of speech not apply to protests over judgements?

what post?

Attempted assassination is not freedom of speech. Invading private property and threatening judges with death is not freedom of speech.

It's funny to think the extreme difference in reaction from progressives if some imaginary "right wing extremist" attempted to assassinate Sonia Sotomayor.

The bottom line is those who're attempting to minimize this have no issue whatsoever with political assassination, violence, and murder, as long as it's them who're the aggressors.

Extremists and shills who constantly shout "WE NEED TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY TO MAKE YOU SAFE!" then promptly attempt to kill anyone they dislike, with guns, and excuse it with, "But right wing extremists!"



This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 15 2022 11:52pm

I am talking about the people standing out the front yelling, not the deranged guy who actually went inside, that guy should have been shot on the spot.

It's still illegal. You do not have the freedom to intimidate a judge in an effort to alter the judgement. This is not an acceptable form of petitioning the government for redress of grievance.

They are ALL committing a crime. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

A fine and a year in jail. Arrest them all. If it were Sotomayor, they'd already be in jail, and moderates and conservatives would all cheer that justice had been done.

At what point do we simply point out that the progressive activists, most especially those on pard such as yourself, Matt, completely support murder, rape, torture, and the complete abridgement of any rights of their political opponents, aka "neighbors you don't like"?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 16 2022 12:48am

So you DON'T believe in freedom of speech?
Going to ignore the obvious bullshit of course.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jun 16 2022 02:30am

Criminal acts are not a question of "freedom of speech". Harassing people on their own private property is not "freedom of speech".

Stop promoting criminal activity against your political opponents. That is the act of a terrorist.

if it was somebody you liked you would be biching about it being against the law

I do not care about laws, and yes it is freedom of speech, if corporations donating money is free speech then picketing a judges house is also.

So now you claim to be more of a free speech absolutist than even the most absolutist libertarian?

That's really odd. I seem to recall you telling us that Donald Trump telling a crowd of people to go outside a public building a peacefully and patriotically let their voices be heard was incitement to insurrection.

Truthfully Matt, if you're going to set a standard by which others are supposed to live their lives, you have to uphold that standard. So, are you willing to state clearly, right now, that all accusations towards Trump regarding January 6th are bullshit? If not, you are a simple liar, and hypocrite, attempting to justify armed mobs threatening the lives and families of your political opponents.

In other words, you actively support terrorism, and are attempting to couch it as "freedom of speech" which your country does not even have, btw, believing we're too stupid to either comprehend or point out the clear lie.

Bottom line is, you've been a strong advocate for "hate speech" laws, you've been a strong advocate for censorship of speech on social media platforms (the digital town square), and every time you talk about freedom of speech, you're merely attempting to play off your support of active terrorism as "but muh rights".

Stay in Australia, Matt. You know, the nation that built and populated concentration camps over a cold? Yeah, the world remembers, do you?