Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say
posted at 1/2/2014 9:04 PM EST
In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
In response to wozzy's comment:
So it is illegal to openly protest now, but you don't see this as crushing free speech, in the "land of the free?" Boy our standards sure have gone to sht.
You agree the law is no good (evil), but disagree with the way I worded it? So you don't mind getting raped as long as someone is whispering loving words into your ear... got it.
I also wonder why something I posted on another thread has bled back over to this one, are you afraid to confront this openly where everyone can see the exchange or are you trying to blur the lines by having a discussion all over the place. Again begging the question, if I am such a tinfoil hat wearing loon than why do you feel the need to respond and follow me around this site?
As Reagan would say: "There you go again!"
It is not illegal to openly protest. Nice try. That's a complete distortion.
I brought your words here because there was already a political discussion going on here. It seemed like the right thing to do. I'm not "afraid" of internet exchanges.
I read MANY threads. So, no, I'm not following you around. Geesh.
Other than that, I post as I please, exercising my First Amendment Right. See! It's still here!
Per HR 347 it is illegal to openly protest in a "disorderly" way around federal facilities or individuals under secret service protection. In essence it's not a full on assault of the 1st amendment, but a side attack in that it restricts free speech and protests around those that probably need to be protested against.
if you consider for a second who and where the secret service "guards", it is pretty much open to everyone and everywhere. Consider that many politicians guarded by the secret service attend various summits, the Olympics, concerts and many other venues, the bill will make it criminal under federal prosecution for protestors to protest in these venues. It creates free speech zones which tend to be far away from the public eye, and ever changing based on how law enforcement wants to define the zone.
You can read into this, or simply take it at face value. I tend to think it does limit free speech/the right to protest which is constitutionally protected. No where does it say free speech is limited to certain area, free speech zones. This to me is a bad precedent to set as the zones like the 100 mile constitution free zone around our borders, can be changed at will.