ML/NJ
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.
About time. Arrest those who block free movement, convict and fine or jail them, and seize their cars. Be nice to know how many cars were stolen? Fingerprints and cigarette DNA could put a bunch of them away for grand theft auto, drug use, etc.
Oh want a dream. Go, Joe, Go!
Is blocking access to a political event a political statement in itself?
...
Free speech doesn’t allow anyone to break the law. What a stupid question.
ITS BEEN A GOOD DRIVE BUT PLEASE DROP ME OFF THE MAIL LIST NOW THAT THE DON HAS MAD IT>>>THANKS!!!!!!!!