Politicians expect protest. They expect political speech. Private citizens are entitled to get upset about it.
I think that the only reason that we are talking about this topic is because Fox News has been flogging its “mob rule” strategy for the last month.
There is a fallacy in your post.
Anyone can post an admonition of moral bankruptcy. You are welcome to ignore it … like libs have always done.
Yeah, true…but it rings pretty hollow when you do it at the same time you then condone and applaud it going on from those you support.
Thanks for trying, though.
The United States wouldn’t exist without far stronger protest than we’ve seen from groups chanting in the faces of politicians. But somehow protest and political speech suddenly have a bad name.
I understand it completely. It is time that we make many forms of protest and political speech illegal.
Our country should change for the better.
If Trump tries to push his moral code on America the way libs have tried to push their moral code on America, there would be something to complain about. Get back to me when Trump tries to teach his ■■■■■ grabbing to children the way libs try to teach their immorality to children.
What did this have to do with Trump?
I was asking someone how you can claim moral superiority when you enact and employ those same tactics?
That has nothing to do with the President.
Nice deflection, though.
Are you trying to suggest there’s something wrong with Donald’s moral code?
That sounds like lib talk to me.
Your posts are always so peaceful.
Depends on what you call political protest and political speech. For example, if patrons in a restaurant start harassing a politician and demand he or she leave the premises, the manager or owner can intervene and demand you leave instead. You are protesting on their property, not yours.
Not in someones face, it isn’t.
And most people don’t live in Maryland.
Kentucky:
“525.080 Harassing communications.
(1)
A person is guilty of harassing communications when, with intent to intimidate,
harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:
(a)
Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone,
telegraph, mail, or any other form of electronic or w
ritten communication in a
manner which causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate
communication;
(b)
Makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, with no purpose
of legitimate communication; or”
Telling someone to leave a restaurant is harassment.
I think that if you look at the chain of posts that you responded to, you’ll see that at no point did I suggest that most people live in Maryland.
As for Kentucky law - you posted the wrong section. That’s the section for “Harassing Communications” - harassment by phone, or email - or, as the statute says, by telegraph. Read before you post.
525.070 is the “in person” harassment statute.
525.070 Harassment.
(1) A person is guilty of harassment when, with intent to intimidate, harass, annoy,
or alarm another person, he or she:
(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects him to physical contact;
(b) Attempts or threatens to strike, shove, kick, or otherwise subject the
person to physical contact;
(c.) In a public place, makes an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or
display, or addresses abusive language to any person present;
(d) Follows a person in or about a public place or places;
(e) Engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm
or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate
purpose; or
(f) Being enrolled as a student in a local school district, and while on school
premises, on school-sponsored transportation, or at a school-sponsored
event:
1. Damages or commits a theft of the property of another student;
2. Substantially disrupts the operation of the school; or
3. Creates a hostile environment by means of any gestures, written
communications, oral statements, or physical acts that a reasonable
person under the circumstances should know would cause another
student to suffer
Sure, just as the restaurant owner can demand that the politician instead leave for, in the view of the protesting patrons, having morally disgusting political views.
Both work.
The politician is on the owner’s property, not his or her own.
Or the restaurant owner can just let it happen.
You also referred to “those you support”. I support the presidency.
So are the owners. My point is no one has a right to demand someone leave a restaurant, except the manager or owner. Free speech does not include the right to yell and harass other customers, whoever owns the place has the final say.
Pretty simple, when you go beyond an initial meeting in which you try to persuade someone who rejects your efforts.
Beyond that you’re moving into harassment and beyond that you get into things like assault and stalking.
If i blow you off and try to extricate myself from the situation, don’t get in my way and don’t peruse me. Whatever you do, do not lay hands on me in an attempt to prevent me from leaving or otherwise.
Other than that protest all you want and do your best to persuade me.
We missed the next line in the VA stalking law:
If the person contacts or follows or attempts to contact or follow the person at whom the conduct is directed after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed, such actions shall be prima facie evidence that the person intended to place that other person, or reasonably should have known that the other person was placed, in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury to himself or a family or household member.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-60.3/
In the case of Sarah Sanders, if someone in her party had told the owner that they did not want any further contact, then the owner’s following them would appear to fall within the stalking statute. Of course a court could rule that the statute is unconstitutional.
As noted earlier stalking laws have been applied to anti-abortion activists who put up wanted posters with pictures and contact information for abortionists. The left has been using similar tactics in the harassment of Republicans. A Democratic congressional staffer was recently charged with releasing information on Republican senators:
Here is a list of attacks, which include several that may fall under stalking statutes:
Here is a list of incidents of assault, arson, and other violent attacks against Republicans just in the last year:
Most of these attacks have been ignored by the mainstream media. Can you imagine the response from the media if these actions had occurred against abortion providers?
The law has not suffered any problems from constitutional challenges nor is there anything there for which such a challenge could be justified.
You have no right to threaten, intimidate, or harass people.
Wiki.
10 more
