Yes, I have. I have asked you 3 times, and this will make 4, how do you support your position that federal agents had a right to designate specific area for protestors exercise their 1st amendment rights. You alluded to the fact that what was done was okay because there are certain limitations to 1st amendment rights. You have not revisited the issue since. Admittedly I didn't read every single free speech decision. I just read a few but it seemed to me that restrictions are reserved for local governments. In other words, it would have been up to the state, county or city to set such restrictions. Are you ever going to comment on this? This is the last thing from a red herring. I've been repeating this issue since the beginning of the thread and said it's the issue which concerns me most of all. I actually said those exact words, more than once.
"anyone can resist a lawful court order"
I never said this. As is typical with your response, you simply ignore what you don't like, like the two other things you said I said, which I did not, and to which you did not reply when I asked you to find where I said that. It's okay, this is typical lawyer tactics, I see it every day.
You've stated that you're okay with civil disobedience, then characterized what went down at the Bundy ranch as "not civil disobedience", but declined to be specific as to why one is different than the other.
We're not even arguing at this point.
Last edited by [LoD]Vermithrax; 04/14/14 06:21 AM.
