I’m going to say the city had no right to issue a permit for that to begin with and we should be chanting “jury nullification” at their trial (for a hate crime?!!).
There was no lawful decree allowing the mural to be there in the first place.
If anything the couple were merely exercising their rights to free speech while simultaneously supporting actual federal regulations regarding traffic lines.
They did more to uphold law than any politician or city Official combined.
No, you haven’t been paying attention then. The gloves are off. Some folks are gonna have to take one for the team and I applaud those patriots. Any good lawyer should be able to argue the points I’ve already made and many more I haven’t. We CANNOT bow our heads to this any longer. Time to fight fire with superior fire.
I had not seen the part about the permit when I wrote that. You have a technical point. But when the technical points allow political slogans glorifying a hate organization to advertise, yet charge "hate" for those who object, I'm still going to be on the rebel side. This whole "hate crime" idea rests on a notion that inner motives can be inferred by certain words, postures, face expressions, in other words indirectly. I reject that notion too and always have. A jury has nothing objective to go on to measure "hate." "Hate crime" has become a pernicious revenge mechanism that benefits one group in an extremely lopsided way, and that group may change in time but it will still be lopsided according to the fad of the day. Do you really think that anyone would have been able to legitimately protest the awesome terror of BLM?
I’m going to say the city had no right to issue a permit for that to begin with and we should be chanting “jury nullification” at their trial (for a hate crime?!!).
I’m proud of those two for standing up.
There was no lawful decree allowing the mural to be there in the first place.
If anything the couple were merely exercising their rights to free speech while simultaneously supporting actual federal regulations regarding traffic lines.
They did more to uphold law than any politician or city Official combined.
No, you haven’t been paying attention then. The gloves are off. Some folks are gonna have to take one for the team and I applaud those patriots. Any good lawyer should be able to argue the points I’ve already made and many more I haven’t. We CANNOT bow our heads to this any longer. Time to fight fire with superior fire.
Those people are trying to correct vandalism, because the law is not doing the job. They aren't sinking at all, the result is closer to the original.
I had not seen the part about the permit when I wrote that. You have a technical point. But when the technical points allow political slogans glorifying a hate organization to advertise, yet charge "hate" for those who object, I'm still going to be on the rebel side. This whole "hate crime" idea rests on a notion that inner motives can be inferred by certain words, postures, face expressions, in other words indirectly. I reject that notion too and always have. A jury has nothing objective to go on to measure "hate." "Hate crime" has become a pernicious revenge mechanism that benefits one group in an extremely lopsided way, and that group may change in time but it will still be lopsided according to the fad of the day. Do you really think that anyone would have been able to legitimately protest the awesome terror of BLM?
Remember that revolutionists hated John Adams too for advocating for the red coats after the Boston Massacre.
Try to not let the downvotes discourage you!