As I said approximately twenty posts ago (and I thought I had also made itclear in my initial post, oh well), I don't dispute that the content is protected. I was commenting on the fact that this person chose to disseminate his or her constitutionally protected message by vandalizing both government and private property.
Sadly, I envision some on the left, if not many on the left here in Ithaca, trying to argue that the vandalism itself, as opposed to the message, was free speech.
Geez, for a guy called "Eagle Eye," you don't read too carefully do you? ;-)
Now if your initial post was as clear as you thought it was you wouldn't have had to clarify it a couple of times. And, no, I didn't read all of the posts before asking my question.
But turn the clock back 4 years, would you have posted this same story about clinton?