0
MyPillow 0 points ago +1 / -1

Read your history, perhaps you've been raised wrong by idiot parents.

Rest, not in peace.

What a traitor to the Constitution.

-2
MyPillow -2 points ago +1 / -3

You're not taking facts well lol.

-1
MyPillow -1 points ago +1 / -2

Don't transfer your retard gene to the "next generation" since you can't understand the First Amendment. You can keep your ego intact. No worries.

-1
MyPillow -1 points ago +1 / -2

I didn't agree with you. Try again.

0
MyPillow 0 points ago +1 / -1

You're retarded. Deport this sub-human.

0
MyPillow 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm watching the stream, they're not on the street. It's protected under the first amendment but interpreted no by the US Supreme Court.

"The right of assembly was first be-fore the Supreme Court in 18761625 in the famous case of United States v. Cruikshank.1626 The Enforcement Act of 18701627 forbade conspiring or going onto the highways or onto the premises of another to intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States."

0
MyPillow 0 points ago +1 / -1

They're not on the street.......

0
MyPillow 0 points ago +1 / -1

"The right of assembly was first be-fore the Supreme Court in 18761625 in the famous case of United States v. Cruikshank.1626 The Enforcement Act of 18701627 forbade conspiring or going onto the highways or onto the premises of another to intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States." As of right now the protesters aren't on the street.

... Are you retarded?

-1
MyPillow -1 points ago +1 / -2

Alright Communist.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court held, "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

This "imminent lawless action" test was later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), as the Court refused to punish speech that advocated illegal action which may take place in the indefinite future.

0
MyPillow 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'll most likely happily shoot you to death if you threaten me.

0
MyPillow 0 points ago +1 / -1

Where does it say that "once intimidation is a factor, there is NO legal protection" in the Constitution?

If you're being harassed then the individual will use their 2nd amendment rights to blast them.

Sounds like you're a Communist traitor to the United States, shitting on the 1st amendment. You will be deported too.

1
MyPillow 1 point ago +1 / -0

Conservatives believe in the Constitution. You're saying you want to shit on the 1st amendment as well? Disgrace.

-5
deleted -5 points ago +1 / -6
-8
MyPillow -8 points ago +2 / -10

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Your statement is against the Constitution of the United States and therefore, an enemy of the state.

-2
MyPillow -2 points ago +6 / -8

no law is above the constitution.

2
MyPillow 2 points ago +4 / -2

Technically they're still "peacefully assembling" as outlined in the constitution. When they start breaking shit, that's when it's a riot.

-14
MyPillow -14 points ago +1 / -15

There's no law in the constitution requiring a specific time of day. As of right now 8;47 PST, they're peacefully "protesting"

view more: Next ›