Riot reviews from actual citizens of towns that had riots?

[robayon]

Originally Posted by Homesteaded [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Totally not something someone should be banned for saying. Cool and normal thing to say. What a psycho.

Don't you believe in free speech? Stop trying to cancel everyone you disagree with, neoliberal

[Homesteaded]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't you believe in free speech? Stop trying to cancel everyone you disagree with, neoliberal

Imminent lawless action is not protected under the First Amendment. You can't redefine the rules to fit your narrative on every occasion.

[robayon]

Originally Posted by Homesteaded [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imminent lawless action is not protected under the First Amendment. You can't redefine the rules to fit your narrative on every occasion.

He said, as he redefined the rules to fit his own narrative on this particular occasion

https://www.okayplayer.com/news/supr...op-lyrics.html

Sorry buckaroo, the Supreme Court has been dodging that intent question for a while now

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Homesteaded [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imminent lawless action is not protected under the First Amendment. You can't redefine the rules to fit your narrative on every occasion.

that actually happens everyday, in all walks of life

[Homesteaded]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He said, as he redefined the rules to fit his own narrative on this particular occasion

https://www.okayplayer.com/news/supr...op-lyrics.html

Sorry buckaroo, the Supreme Court has been dodging that intent question for a while now

Nice bullshit article. The law is with me, as I said, imminent threats are not protected. Calling for the killing of cops is something that low moral people do. These low moral people are compromising our society and you stand idly by playing semantics over it.

[robayon]

Originally Posted by Homesteaded [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice bullshit article. The law is with me, as I said, imminent threats are not protected.

It really isn't, but you can ignore all the legal standings you want, I frequently do as I don't fundamentally believe in American rule of law as it's corrupted top to bottom

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...-pennsylvania/

I feel as a person of faith myself that there's no such thing as an ethical capitalist, so I'll just ignore your feelings about morality as long as you support the American status quo, which causes far more global violence than any amount of dead cops here

[Jibartik]

I should be able to threaten whoever I want and if anyone has a problem with it they can come to my house and get their head blown off.

That's how you dont let tiktok take over.

[hobart]

Originally Posted by Homesteaded [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Calling for the killing of cops is something that low moral people do. These low moral people are compromising our society and you stand idly by playing semantics over it.

Same with calling for the killing of protestors, vandals, and thieves.

[Whale biologist]

is it really a SCOTUS issue or a shutup Gravydoo issue?

Shutup Gravydoo.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Same with calling for the killing of protestors, vandals, and thieves.

Nobody is calling for them to be killed, we're calling for them to even be arrested or prosecuted at all. Most aren't, even when violent. The police often either are unable or unwilling to intervene, which isn't surprising considering the media is ready to crucify them the minute they use any force at all against the totally peaceful mob of peace.

Peacefully protest all you want, it's your right, but throw a skateboard at kyle's head while he's trying to get away from you and you might just get shot.