Inspired by Trump, new Arizona law redefines free speech

"these men were wearing turbans on there heads" Yup

Excellent idea....

I’d say a mandatory 2-year prison stint, for starters.

If blocking traffic results in someone’s death, such as an ambulance or baby that might have been delivered, I say voluntary manslaughter, fines and restitution.

Gee, I have no sympathy for those blocking traffic on purpose.

Good story, and thanks.

Good for Alex .

“I felt that my life was in danger”

/floors it

;)

AJ was in the USMC? I had no idea.

Isn't creating a situation with such wanton disregard for the safety of others against the law?

It is... It falls under the rubric of "Gross Criminal Negligence"...

the infowarrior

Bravo Gov. Ducey1
The "right" to protest stops when the protest becomes physical; when "protesters" are bused in from other states; if the protest is about/against government then any protestor taking government handouts, food stamps, housing, or unemployment should not be allowed to protest NOR should any protester accept money to protest.....free speech is not a job.

“It’s a good start. There should be penalties for blocking traffic. Period.”

I agree.

.

Ya know if some of those ambulance chasers start having unfortunate accidents...

What freedom of speech is not:

Foreign illegal alien invaders from Mexico using mob rule to block the roads to stop legal political gatherings of American citizens.

We don’t need the law if it is understand that people can run over or shoot those obstructing access and have immunity.

One definition of a God-ordained right is an activity that costs nothing in its exercise and costs no one else in its exercise. By this definition, blocking traffic isn’t a right, be it speech or anything else.

Is blocking access to a political event a political statement in itself?

Sure and flying airplanes into skyscrapers is a political statement too. An act is not lawful or Constitutional simply because it is a political statement.

Make America Great Again

Ping!

This ping provides two daily lists of links to Trump-related threads on FR.

To be added to or dropped from this ping list,
post your request on the thread below or freepmail to Albion Wilde.

* * *

Selected Trump articles on FR, from 12:00 AM to 5:00 PM EDT, 5/17/16:
Opinion: Democrats, not Republicans, may be on verge of unraveling –MarketWatch
Inspired by Trump, new Arizona law redefines free speech –CSMonitor
Paul Ryan embraces poll showing more Republicans trust Trump than him –Politico
McCain In Deep Trouble in GOP Primary; Trump, Clinton Close in AZ –PPP
Hillary Clinton ‘Super PAC’ to Air First Attack Ads Aimed at Donald Trump –NYT
Trump Slams Cameron, Khan on Islam Comments: ‘Don’t Pretend It’s Not a Problem’ –Breitbart
Lady and the Trump [Melania] –Dujour
LIVE THREAD: Oregon Primary Day and Returns –OregonVotes.gov
Stanford Law Fellow Vivek Wadhwa weighs in on Trump's rant how Apple must make iPhones in U.S. (video)
Why Donald Trump’s Surprising Wins in These Wealthy Suburbs Matter –Time
Trump’s VP Pick Prediction –Scott Adams (Dilbert)
BERGDAHL TO BE COURT-MARTIALED UNDER NEW COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF –AP
Dear FRiends, We need your continuing support to keep FR going strong. –Jim Robinson
Trump Pulls Almost Even With Clinton in New Poll –MorningConsult
Hillary Clinton Supports Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Demands –YoungConservatives
"A nation without public virtue...betrayed by their own representatives…" –William Federer
Pennsylvania Could Be An Electoral Tipping Point –538
Megyn Kelly's first interview with Donald Trump, tonight on Fox –AL.com
Megyn Kelly: We Want Trump Painted into Inescapable Box of Sexism –Sundance
Donald Trump hires pollster Tony Fabrizio –CNN
Scratch Sarah: Ben Carson walks back Palin having second shot at VP – also kills off Ted, Marco, Kasich and Christie! –DailyMail
Hillary Clinton to support Federal Reserve change sought by liberals –WaPo
Bill Clinton Confirms "Wants Economic Role" In Hillary's Administration –ZeroHedge
The presidency is Hillary Clinton’s to lose. Here are 12 ways she could lose it. –WaPo
Trump to San Francisco: Sanctuary Cities ‘Unacceptable,’ A ‘Disaster’ –Matthew Boyle
9-11 First Responder Helped by Trump: "Humanitarian, Reaches Out, Donates" –Alex Swoyer
Founders Smiling On Trump For Returning Power To The People –Breitbart
No Apologies for Calling Bill Kristol ‘Renegade Jew’ –David Horowitz
Trump: Refugees Could Commit Next 9/11 –Pam Key
Does Donald Trump represent a step forward for climate change action? –Guardian
Democrats Try To Outlaw Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban –Robert Spencer
Is Mitt on a Suicide Mission? –Pat Buchanan
Teary-eyed Cruz: This movement doesn’t go away in one election –TheHill

Holding up protest signs - legal and protected speech.
Blocking access, harassing, threatening, fighting etc. - not legal, not protected.

I approve of this new law.

However, the law is not “inspired by Trump”. It is a reaction to massive denial by leftist agitators of free speech and free assembly rights of people wishing to attend a Trump rally.

The goal is to prevent anything like this from happening again.

Meanwhile, I hope that Arizona prosecutes the Soros-employed professional agitator who spearheaded the original action, for blocking traffic and/or breaking other relevant existing laws.

People have the right to speak, but they don't have the right to be heard. Anyone who shows up where there is a reasonable expectation that I might be there intending to shout at me, block my way, or even just show me a sign, is denying me my civil rights. They should all be arrested, charged, and prosecuted under existing civil rights statutes.

ML/NJ

The other law prevents state universities and community colleges from limiting where free speech can be exercised, which directly affects a lawsuit against Paradise Valley Community College in Phoenix. Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian organization that aims to protects free speech, alleges the college prohibited a student from having an informational table in a "free speech" zone on campus.

Something is not making sense here; If it was a "free speech" zone then the issue is not about limiting where free speech can be exercised but limiting the content of the speech, which is of course wrong. But limiting where some expressions of free speech can occur seems quite reasonable to me. Just because what you say is political does not mean you should be able to say it on a bullhorn in the library. Like blocking traffic, the reason it is not covered by "freedom of speech" is because the method of the speech is causing problems that are independent of the content of the speech. The violation of free speech happens when content is censored, not when the method of speech is limited. Of course if a given method is ok or not ok depending on the content, then its really about the content, which is not ok. For example if it was ok for left-wingers to use a bullhorn in a library but not right-wingers then there is a problem. But not using a bullhorn in a library for any kind of speech is very reasonable, and its even reasonable to make an exception for firemen during an emergency.