Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
Did you see the peaceful protest?
Mostly a bunch of women!
You scared/ intimidated by a few ladies exercising the right to peacefully protest?
|
i wouldn't be you twit the point is it is attempting to influence these justices which is prohibited by law for their role in the legal system. same applies to jurors. it's one of the reasons in some high profile cases the jurors are sequestered in hotels to keep people from harassing them. or bribing them to influence a verdict.
recall that happened in the rittenhouse case where msnbc tried to follow the jury to their hotel and got caught for it. the judge banned msnbc from being in the court during the trial. the reporter and news crew were lucky that's all that happened to them.
so much for free speech and the "rights" of the press. did ya think that was right? probably not because you're one of the goobers in this forum who is convinced rittenhouse is a "murderer" aren't ya?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
I'm open to anybody putting on their defense atty. hat and give us an argument that says they aren't intending to intimidate, aren't intending to reverse what they think these judges are "thinking about doing".
I can't think of a single "convincing" thing a defense attorney could say to convince me these people aren't there to intimidate since the judges are still considering their decision. If the case was already decided, the protesters could then say they are protesting a decision already made so no intimidation to change their mind is in play.
To suggest this is merely an "information" protest is silly beyond belief. Are they informing the public that this decision will not end abortion? If not and they are saying that this decision will end abortion, that is disinformation and we all know that must be stopped at all cost, right?
And how silly to suggest that these protesters are merely attempting to "inform" the justices with information they may not be aware of.
Abortion providers are not judges. Judges are a legally protected class all their own. But of course this DOJ wants to investigate parents trying to intimidate school boards, not a protected class that I'm aware of but doesn't want to investigate people actually violating a law that specifically protects judges.
Hell, I could argue this in court and win.
|
exactly. these cunts are there for one reason only, to intimidate the justices. they wouldn't even care or be there if not for the leak.
if this was Tucker Carlson's house it's a different issue. and people have protested at Carlson's house. now if Carlson just happened to be on jury duty he'd have the same protections the justices and judges have. and lawyers too and that includes both the prosecution and defense teams.
it's amusing some posters here think free speech and the right to protest have no limitations. they do have limits. free speech does not give someone the right to slander/libel someone with impunity. it certainly does not give someone the right to make threats of harm. it's called terroristic threats and it can be considered a felony.
Elon Muskrat has said that while he wants free speech on twittybird (if he takes control) he won't allow free speech that crosses the line and becomes terroristic threats of violence etc.
the same applies for protests. in most cases an organized and announced rally/protest requires a permit. in the case of spontaneous demonstrations the moment it becomes a riot it's unlawful and police can forcefully disperse the protesters.
