Freedom of speech or an idiot?

I don't like it, but according to the standards of 2001-2009 it is a nothing.

Before 2009 posting something like this would have been called patriotic. Now it is les Majestie.
 
I don't like it, but according to the standards of 2001-2009 it is a nothing.

Before 2009 posting something like this would have been called patriotic. Now it is les Majestie.

What I do find interesting is that a while ago a woman (it might have been Cindy Sheehan - and I can't be arsed looking it up) wore an anti-war t-shirt to a rally Bush was giving and the secret service tossed her from the event. I wonder what is more alarming - wearing an anti-war t-shirt or having teenage kids shooting at a t-shirt of their president? They're both silly to involve the SS.

This is also very silly too. But then again, you Yanks don't fuck around with this stuff...lol

Twitter news: US bars friends over Twitter joke | The Sun |News
 
I don't like it, but according to the standards of 2001-2009 it is a nothing.

Before 2009 posting something like this would have been called patriotic. Now it is les Majestie.

What I do find interesting is that a while ago a woman (it might have been Cindy Sheehan - and I can't be arsed looking it up) wore an anti-war t-shirt to a rally Bush was giving and the secret service tossed her from the event. I wonder what is more alarming - wearing an anti-war t-shirt or having teenage kids shooting at a t-shirt of their president? They're both silly to involve the SS.

This is also very silly too. But then again, you Yanks don't fuck around with this stuff...lol

Twitter news: US bars friends over Twitter joke | The Sun |News

Not the same thing... she was at an 'event'? what event? What was the 'anti-war' t-shirt?
 
It depends on whether one construes the investigation, or likelihood of an investigation, as de facto preemption or prior restraint.

Otherwise it’s free expression in my opinion per Brandenburg, there’s no imminent threat of criminal activity.
 
It depends on whether one construes the investigation, or likelihood of an investigation, as de facto preemption or prior restraint.

Otherwise it’s free expression in my opinion per Brandenburg, there’s no imminent threat of criminal activity.

Not only is there no imminent threat there is no evidence of intent to harm the President in anyway. People shoot all kind of targets. Hell Teddy Roosevelt used to target practice on life size targets of foreign leaders he did not like.

And if this really were some kind of threat then why weren't any of the people that displayed signs with a hanging George Bush investigated? Or the signs where he was shot in the head?
 

Forum List

Back
Top