Are aggressive acts legitimate forms of protest and do you believe they are protected free speech?

[AZRWinger]

See post #220

Nothing to offer bit lame attempts at deflection

Prove you can write more than a single sentence with even marginal resemblance to a reasoned response.

 

[Hello My Son]

My position is that aggressive behavior and speech is legally protected right up to the point that it impedes on another's individual rights to their own freedoms and security. And their legitimacy is determined for me by the action's ultimate effectiveness in addressing the stated goal.

Which translates to it not being protected or legitimate to burn down someone's business, but being perfectly acceptable to start a bonfire in the middle of the street (as long as nobody is hurt nor their possessions destroyed). Verbal aggression is protected up to the point that specific threats are made against another person. I'd actually say that firing a gun off in the sky should be protected (unless it hits a plane or something like that for the reasons explained above).

It's also legitimate and protected for people to hide their identities and carry weapons, as long as the weapons are only used for legal self-defense. Entrapping, threatening, or assaulting people who are bystanders is never acceptable, nor is destroying their property, and these things are not effective in addressing the stated goals of legitimate protests anyway. IMO, the people who do this are sociopaths and/or anarchists and/or mentally disturbed people who glob onto groups who are legitimately protesting just so they can act out their violent fantasies. Extremist groups like Proud Boys and ANTIFA are notorious for such actions.

That about sums up my position after reading through everyone's responses. Thank you to all who shared their opinions and ideas on this topic. It was very enlightening and some of my positions shifted as a result persuasive arguments that were posed.