- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 82,630
- Reaction score
- 74,747
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
In my understanding of current SCOTUS view on legally protected free speech, probably not.It would seem that your response is “Other” and your elaboration is that it’s at least sometimes legitimate.
Would you consider those legitimate examples to be legally protected forms of speech?
You believe.Hence the Trotskyite pursuit of permanent revolution.
You tell yourself.As soon as one faction settles in to their own thing the "revolutionaries" need to come along and rile them up again. I mean, if you want to make sure you NEVER have a civil society then it's a great way to go!
This provides the distinction between terrorism and guerilla war.Never against civilians, e.g. blocking highways, looting, etc.
But against the state or state property? Be my guest.
These posters are neoMarxists. (This forum has many)
Karl Marx wrote about aggressive acts and violence as being acceptable forms of protest between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in his Communist Manifesto.
That depends on what you're protesting. If you're advocating for a liberal cause then vandalism, arson, throwing rocks and terrorizing motorists is all protected PEACEFUL speech. If you're advocating somethingthat ISN'T a liberal cause then holding signs and wearing patriotic gear is domestic terrorism. Finally, if you're protesting abortion then sitting silently in prayer then you are among the worst of the worst and need to be removed from society permanently.
That depends on what you're protesting. If you're advocating for a liberal cause then vandalism, arson, throwing rocks and terrorizing motorists is all protected PEACEFUL speech. If you're advocating somethingthat ISN'T a liberal cause then holding signs and wearing patriotic gear is domestic terrorism. Finally, if you're protesting abortion then sitting silently in prayer then you are among the worst of the worst and need to be removed from society permanently.
Again, nobody is KIDNAPPING people off the streets.
All you're doing is perpetuating a false narrative.
ICE Kidnappings
Recent reports have highlighted growing concerns over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducting aggressive raids and detaining individuals without clear justification, often in unmarked vans and without disclosing their whereabouts. These actions have been described by critics as "kidnappings," particularly when individuals are taken without due process or criminal charges.
In Los Angeles, ICE conducted raids that led to the detention of over 100 individuals, many of whom had no criminal records. Families and legal advocates have expressed outrage, stating that they have been unable to contact their loved ones or obtain information about their detention. Some were reportedly taken from workplaces, including a car wash and gas station, and transported to detention facilities in Texas without their families being notified.
In Philadelphia, a disturbing incident occurred where a man impersonating an ICE agent zip-tied a woman and stole $1,000 from her. This has raised fears that the aggressive tactics employed by ICE are being mimicked by criminals, further endangering vulnerable communities.
There have also been high-profile cases involving students and academics. Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish-born PhD student at Tufts University, was abducted by masked agents and taken to a detention center over 1,000 miles away from her home. Her lawyers were initially unable to locate her, and she was held without formal charges.
In New York, a mother and her three children were detained by ICE during a raid in Sackets Harbor. They were taken without a judicial warrant and transported to a detention facility in Texas, despite reportedly complying with immigration court procedures.
Critics argue that ICE’s actions are increasingly resembling those of a paramilitary force, with agents operating in plain clothes, concealing their identities, and detaining individuals based on perceived immigration status rather than actual criminal threats. Advocacy groups and legal organizations have called for reforms, transparency, and an end to what they describe as unlawful and inhumane practices.
These incidents have sparked protests, legal challenges, and calls for congressional action to rein in ICE’s authority and ensure due process for all individuals, regardless of immigration status.
We've had hundreds of left wing protests over the years but, without fail, you guys always come back to the one right wing protest you can think of.Everyday college kegger, ammirite?
We've had hundreds of left wing protests over the years but, without fail, you guys always come back to the one right wing protest you can think of.
We've had hundreds of left wing protests over the years but, without fail, you guys always come back to the one right wing protest you can think of.
Or, it's incredibly courageous and morally superior, as it means:1. Pacifism is often moral surrender and cowardice.
oooooookay....2. "Turn the other cheek" has an expiration date. Especially when the adversary takes advantage of the irrational commitment to it.
Actually....3. Fascists are a special case, because they have always used democracy to destroy it.
At some point it would be a good idea for you to go back and read the "kegger" post again.That one protest proves your hypocrisy.
To this day you call it an everyday college kegger while demanding the full force of the U.S. military be brought down on Los Angeles for fleeting, low-intensity violence (scuffles, thrown rocks, etc.)
If it's a protest in favor of something you don't like = TOTAL ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!
If it's a violent protest in favor of something you like = I don't get it guys. What's the big deal? It's just an "everyday college kegger."
Questioning both the intention of the thread and the sincerity behind it.
Non assaultive and or destructive Civil Disobedience at times might be required in order to effect needed change.Civil disobedience is not constitutionally protected speech.
That doesn't mean that there are not times when it is required.
The Boston Tea Party comes to mind…
The Boston Tea Party was a material destruction protest, tea, organized by members of the oppressed citizenry against their King and his Government, and January 6th was a protest with material destruction and violence by non-oppressed members of the citizenry, organized by a would be King, against his own Government.And Jan 6
The Boston Tea Party was a material destruction protest, tea, organized by members of the oppressed citizenry against their King and his Government, and January 6th was a protest with material destruction and violence by non-oppressed members of the citizenry, organized by a would be King, against his own Government.
Other than that, they were just the same.
Why is that? It's a straightforward question and I haven't said a thing about anyone's responses nor argued against anyone's opinion on the matter. It's an interesting topic to see where different opinions lie.
The summer of hate proves yours.That one protest proves your hypocrisy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?