Winners only.

Status
Not open for further replies.
So ban everything because you don't want to single out **** 🤔
That's kind of how free speech works. You can't ban one type but not another without a real mess.
Imagine saying Catholics can stand on the corner proselytizing, but Buddhists cannot. It kind of HAS to be all or nothing.

I just watched a video of a guy protesting an LGBTQXYZ gathering. He was doing it on public property, across the street from where the group was doing their thing on public property, A cop told him to stop (wrong), then arrested him for continuing. That's a rights violation. No good.
 
Last edited:
😳


54F9095B-83C9-43A0-8575-5D97A2F2AC3C.jpeg
 
That's kind of how free speech works. You can't ban one type but not another without a real mess.
Imagine saying Catholics can stand on the corner proselytizing, but Buddhists cannot. It kind of HAS to be all or nothing.

I just watched a video of a guy protesting an LGBTQXYZ gathering. He was doing it on public property, across the street from where the group was doing their thing on public property, A cop told him to stop (wrong), then arrested him for continuing. That's a rights violation. No good.
Looks like you whiffed that free-throw too buddy...
 
That's kind of how free speech works. You can't ban one type but not another without a real mess.
Imagine saying Catholics can stand on the corner proselytizing, but Buddhists cannot. It kind of HAS to be all or nothing.

I just watched a video of a guy protesting an LGBTQXYZ gathering. He was doing it on public property, across the street from where the group was doing their thing on public property, A cop told him to stop (wrong), then arrested him for continuing. That's a rights violation. No good.
There are limitations on speech and *********** has been singled out before. As for counter protesters, I think they should be prevented from counter protesting at the event. They can hold their protest the next day, next week, etc. Two opposing protests has led to too much violence IMHO.
 
There are limitations on speech and *********** has been singled out before. As for counter protesters, I think they should be prevented from counter protesting at the event. They can hold their protest the next day, next week, etc. Two opposing protests has led to too much violence IMHO.
There are definitely limitations, but we have moved well beyond *********** being illegal to produce and distribute (local statute, obscenity, and child *********** notwithstanding). Like other speech, it is protected under the 1A.

So, do we now want to follow Thx’s lead and decide that one legal form of free speech is ok because we like it, but another is not ok because we don’t like it?
That’s a dangerous and slippery slope to be on.

Same with the opposing protests. If both are being done legally and the goal is to avoid conflict, then both must be stopped. LE can’t get into a pickle by arresting protesters on one side and not the other. Laws need to be enforced fairly and with equity.
Imagine if it was two religious services and LE decided to shut one down because they didn’t like it.
Bad juju.
 
Looks like you whiffed that free-throw too buddy...
What “free-throw” is that? Deciding one form of legal free speech should be allowed but another form of legal free speech should be disallowed?

What if they were recording and distributing readings from the Bible?
Would you consider it acceptable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

Slo_Ride

5,000+ posts
Regulator
Thread starter
Slo_Ride
Joined
Location
ATLANTA
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
33,976
Views
1,098,045
Last reply date
Last reply from
Buck
20260423_214720.jpg

BP1Fanatic

    May 14, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
20260419_124349.jpg

BP1Fanatic

    May 14, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top