Just another example of the disgusting left!

[Dave70968]

That's no surprise. I still think it should be a crime to burn or otherwise desecrate the US flag in protest.

"Current jurisprudence" doesn't always shape my personal opinions.

Apparently, neither does the First Amendment.

 

[SMS]

Some folks on "the right" are just as hypocritical about free speech as some folks on "the left" are.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Hope she goes to some incarceration like she deserves. She will learn real quick her humor won't get her far. Its a shame that "comedians" think their 1st amendment rights can transgress what the average citizen would be visited by the SS for doing the same thing.
BUT, she is a liberal, and gets a pass.

Throw em jail! For what, exactly? I know how much you hate the BOR (except the 2nd, of course) but in this county we have laws. And you have to break one before we lock you up. At least for now, Trump has already expressed his desire to lock people up for speech he doesn't like. I'm not the least bit surprised you're on board. I can absolutely guarantee you never expressed any of those sentiments when Ted "Draft Dodger" Nugent advocated killing Obama. Which, by the way, Griffin didn't advocate killing Trump.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Surprisingly, not a peep out of the OSA Trump loving brigade for this:

 

[Dave70968]

So is it ok to hang blacks in effigy? Or does that not fall under the "proud American tradition" ...?

I'd say it's distasteful, but not that it should be forbidden.

That said, you're changing the context with that question. The effigy in the context of your original statement is "the leader of our nation;" the "proud American tradition" to which I was referring is an effigy of a national leader (traditionally, King George). That's pretty clearly core political speech, which enjoys the highest protection under the First Amendment.

 

[Dave70968]

Hope she goes to some incarceration like she deserves. She will learn real quick her humor won't get her far. Its a shame that "comedians" think their 1st amendment rights can transgress what the average citizen would be visited by the SS for doing the same thing.
BUT, she is a liberal, and gets a pass.

The problem, then, isn't that she gets a pass; it's that the average citizen doesn't. The SS should only be bothering people for true threats, not for being offensive. Using the investigators to harass somebody who hasn't actually committed a crime is Kafkaesque; it's making the process the punishment.

 

[SlugSlinger]

Surprisingly, not a peep out of the OSA Trump loving brigade for this:

What a freaking lame attempt to legitimize CNN's EX-employee Griffin. Great job ace, keep up the good work!

 

[dennishoddy]

The problem, then, isn't that she gets a pass; it's that the average citizen doesn't. The SS should only be bothering people for true threats, not for being offensive. Using the investigators to harass somebody who hasn't actually committed a crime is Kafkaesque; it's making the process the punishment.

Why did "uncle Ted" get a visit from the Secret service then? Harassment by the outraged liberals?

 

[dennishoddy]

Throw em jail! For what, exactly? I know how much you hate the BOR (except the 2nd, of course) but in this county we have laws. And you have to break one before we lock you up. At least for now, Trump has already expressed his desire to lock people up for speech he doesn't like. I'm not the least bit surprised you're on board. I can absolutely guarantee you never expressed any of those sentiments when Ted "Draft Dodger" Nugent advocated killing Obama. Which, by the way, Griffin didn't advocate killing Trump.

The Secret Service visited with Ted. They found his opinion to not be a credible threat. Take your fake news and put it where the sun doesn't shine.
Was it because Obama ordered them to suppress his opinion?

 

[Glocktogo]

The problem, then, isn't that she gets a pass; it's that the average citizen doesn't. The SS should only be bothering people for true threats, not for being offensive. Using the investigators to harass somebody who hasn't actually committed a crime is Kafkaesque; it's making the process the punishment.

The USSS "bothers" everyone who makes what could be construed a threat, and no one who's merely being offensive. Likewise they "bother" anyone who violates a presidential TFR. They do this because they don't know who is inappropriately expressing their feelings and who is truly ramping up their courage to commit an attack. That's why they're called "Investigatiors".

It would only be Kafkaesque if they took it farther than a friendly chat and open source dive when the person is determined to not be an actual threat.