Vermithrax]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.
I did respond already. It's a red herring. Because only speech qualifies for 1st Amendment protection. Driving your ATV at the cops, blocking traffic, interfering with a court order, and arguing with the cops does not qualify as speech. So, to answer your original question -- time/place/manner restrictions are not the exclusive jurisdiction of local authorities. But, the issue is a red herring because it has nothing to do with our conversation. Allow me to connect the dots...
"anyone can resist a lawful court order"
I never said this.
But remember when I asked you to articulate a position? You said exactly that...
I guess my point is, if an American citizen feels they were railroaded in a court decision, I don't think it's out of the question to do what these people have done,. . .
Then I asked you to clarify "what they had done." Remember that?
In your own words, what have these people done? Do you agree that they were actively attempting to interfere with a lawful court order?
And you responded so perfectly...
Yes dude....how can I say it any plainer than I have already said it? What other words do you need me to say to understand that I think their interference with a court order was okay? I'm not arguing whether or not they are breaking the law by doing so. Clearly, they are. What I am saying is that I am okay with it. The believe they are being victimized by an over reaching government so they are actively resisting the orders of that government.
So yeah, you did actually say that anyone can resist a court order. And no, this conversation has nothing to do with "free speech" because you already admitted that these people were interfering with a court order and breaking the law. But, your position is so retarded, that I knew you would eventually try and change it. That is why I included the bit about "only people that think and believe like you" are able to ignore court orders.
Because the second you figured out that your argument would justify virtually all criminal conduct, you would have to restrict "who" exactly can ignore the law, or under what circumstances. The rest of your posts are just an attempt to reshape your argument while maintaining some sort of illusion of victory.
And... as I predicted, let the retractions begin!
I didn't say anyone who feels they've been railroaded has the right to resist a court order.
and compare your "new summary" to the summary I asked you to give earlier today:
A better summary of my position would be this: There are some extreme situations when those in power have questionable motives where it would be appropriate to resist a court order because the system has been abused by corrupt individuals.
Now, your position is that there are times when it is appropriate to resist a court order because the system has been abused by other people!
That is why I brought up the illegal aliens, the drunk driver, all that crap. Because eventually you would realize your position was ridiculous. Then you would start a shuckin'and'jiving--- trying to change your position. Because at your core, you don't want everyone ignoring the law. You only want people to ignore the law when they think and believe like you do... essentially, I knew you would eventually revert back to some position where only people of a similar political persuasion as yourself had a right to ignore the law.
But I used a "lawyer trick." Which was to make you actually articulate a position. You use a common tactic where you just talk a lot without making a point. It's like a boxing fighter trying to stay on the ropes... he can't get pinned down, so even though he's taking a lot of incoming fire, he can stay alive by keep moving. You do the same. Your "summary" or "position" is constantly changing. Go back and read your posts man, you are so all over the board it doesn't even make sense. At this point I'm beginning to wonder if you're coming off of a coke binge.
And the difference between civil disobedience and this jackasses is the violent nature of their protest. If they wanted to sit down in front of the trucks and let the cops carry them away -- peaceably -- then I've got no quarrel with that. You get to protest, the cops carry you away, no one is hurt and we can all go about our business.
Civil disobedience = passive resistance. What this guy did was violent action. You want to sit in front of the trucks and lock arms till the cops carry you away? No problem. You want to kick a dog in the face and assault cops? Go fuck yourself.
I'm not trying to be rude. Just read your prior posts and ask yourself, honestly, if you think they are consistent. There is no shame in having an emotional reaction and identifying with these people. Just take a little time to reflect on the conversation and if you
really think about how that sort of philosophy plays out in the real world.
