13-year-old arrested during protest at Central Florida Starbucks, deputies say

[leftwinger]

Geezus! Now the DEMs are sending out 13 yr olds to destroy society!

Back in the olden days, a belt whipping or paddle at school would quiet this boy down fast.

 

[Flash]

Of course not. He has his Capitol Police do it. After all, they do the speaker’s bidding, right?

The Capitol Police doesn't convict people you moron. only the Federal Court in DC, and that is under the DOJ.

So you think it is different that free speech shouldn't apply to anybody that criticizes Potatohead?

The father of the Marine that Potatohead killed with his incompetence is being charged by the DOJ for saying words that Potatohead did not like. That is not free speech, is it?

 

[Marener]

The Capitol Police doesn't convict people you moron.

I said arrested. He was arrested by Mike Johnson’s police. Does Mike Johnson believe in free speech?

 

[jknowgood]

Don't you have a right under the Constitution of peaceful protest?

Ask the Jan 6th protesters and get back to me.

 

[jknowgood]

The Capitol Police doesn't convict people you moron. only the Federal Court in DC, and that is under the DOJ.

So you think it is different that free speech shouldn't apply to anybody that criticizes Potatohead?

The father of the Marine that Potatohead killed with his incompetence is being charged by the DOJ for saying words that Potatohead did not like. That is not free speech, is it?

Biden prefers the name pedo joe.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I think the original intent of the cotus was for petition to the government, as I stated.

The lunch counter sit ins were not what the first ammendment was about, in regards to protests. Was the message of the people who did the sit ins right? Absolutely, but still not what the cotus original intent was about.

Also, a sit in because your civil rights were being trampled on is a far cry from someone being triggered because they have to pay a higher price for vegan milk…

Explain to us what the intent was for or better yet post what it reads in the Constitution. Everybody has an opinion, let's get to the root of what it really means.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Ask the Jan 6th protesters and get back to me.

What is peaceful about smashing windows, forcing your way into a building and harming officers of the Law.

 

[jknowgood]

What is peaceful about smashing windows, forcing your way into a building and harming officers of the Law.

It was considered peaceful during the summer of love. Even burning and looting to the sum of two billion dollars.

 

[HeyNorm]

Big dairy farms are pretty gross.

You’ve obviously never been to one then. Clean as can be. If they were gross, the cows would get sick which lowers production. Dairy farms do best with healthy cows.

 

[HeyNorm]

What is peaceful about smashing windows, forcing your way into a building and harming officers of the Law.

In a manner less harmful and less violent than the BLM protests?

Got me I guess.

 

[Care4all]

The Capitol Police doesn't convict people you moron. only the Federal Court in DC, and that is under the DOJ.

So you think it is different that free speech shouldn't apply to anybody that criticizes Potatohead?

The father of the Marine that Potatohead killed with his incompetence is being charged by the DOJ for saying words that Potatohead did not like. That is not free speech, is it?

Prove he's being charged for that.....link?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It was considered peaceful during the summer of love. Even burning and looting to the sum of two billion dollars.

That was called rioting.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

In a manner less harmful and less violent than the BLM protests?

Got me I guess.

Funny how Trump Humpers see Jan 6 as a peaceful protest.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No freedom of speech on private property now?

Never has been.

 

[22lcidw]

What is peaceful about smashing windows, forcing your way into a building and harming officers of the Law.

There are endless rap songs that will answer that.

 

[Marener]

Never has been.

Someone tell the government authoritarians in Florida and Texas.

Supreme Court skeptical of Texas, Florida regulation of social media moderation - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of a pair of laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies control content posted on their sites. During nearly four hours of arguments, several justices suggested that the laws violate the First Amendment because they i

www.scotusblog.com

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Constitution says CONGRESS shall make no law. It doesn't say STARBUCKS shall make no law.

 

[jknowgood]

That was called rioting.

Not what the media reported, even Harris raised money for bailing them out of jail.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Explain to us what the intent was for or better yet post what it reads in the Constitution. Everybody has an opinion, let's get to the root of what it really means.

Ok, start with the relevant text of the cotus:

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You have the right to assemble (to gather) peaceably, and to petition the government for redress of grievance

Freedom of Assembly and Petition: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

There are a few articles out there about the intent of the freedom of assembly, and I’m looking for one in particular but can’t remember where I found it before, but this one from the link above kind of gives an indication to what I’m talking about:

The Cruikshank Case​

The right of assembly was first before the Supreme Court in 187610 in the famous case of United States v. Cruikshank.11 The Enforcement Act of 187012 forbade conspiring or going onto the highways or onto the premises of another to intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States. Defendants had been indicted under this Act on charges of having deprived certain citizens of their right to assemble together peaceably with other citizens “for a peaceful and lawful purpose.” Although the Court held the indictment inadequate because it did not allege that the attempted assembly was for a purpose related to the Federal Government, its dicta broadly declared the outlines of the right of assembly. “The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States.

The bolded part would seem to indicate that the freedom to assemble and petition was really related to addressing the government, would it not?

Also, under the premise of “peaceable assembly”, a protest, where you are in conflict with whatever the target of the protest is, standing around, picketing, shouting, sometimes blocking the entrance to a business, or harassing customers coming in or going out, that is not considered peaceable.

Remember, the term “peaceable” doesn’t mean violence has to be present to be considered non peaceable:

1
a
: disposed to peace : not contentious or quarrelsome
b
: quietly behaved

2
: free from strife or disorder

Simply to be in conflict, or in contention, not QUIETLY behaved, could negate the idea of a “protest”

So, the idea of peaceable assembly would generally rule out “protests” because protests, especially by todays standards, would indicate conflict, or contention.

This is why I think that that segment of the first ammendment was not related to picketing your local Starbucks, but rather, assembling at your government to make your case for change, in a peaceable way.

 

[Blaster]

It's not peaceful if it's violent.

I already said that.