If conservatives had bounties to follow around Sotomayor and Jackson, you all would be screaming bloody murder, and that isn't even a slippery slope, that is simply the other side doing exactly what you're applauding and enabling. But yes, if this is the new normal things will escalate. When that happens, just remember that this is what you wanted. You thought harassing and following people around was part of the American spirit and part of the First Amendment. Be careful what you wish for and be careful what you advocate in favor of.
You compared documented fake claims of fraud to documented agreed upon facts on gerrymandering. Your nonsense is nonsense.
Nope. That case is actually irrelevant to what we are discussing here. The wedding cake was a matter of broadly “protected classes” under civil rights and public accommodation laws. Basically defining discrimination along certain extremely broad lines (sex, race, religion, national origin… and in that case involved a states laws re: sexual orientation… although personally I think sexual orientation should already be flatly included under “sex”). If you are serving the public, you cannot discriminate against or exclude based solely on those broad categorizations. A specific politician or group of politicians aren’t a “protected class” any more than a known criminal or gang member would be.
The First Amendment doesn't exist to convenience government officials. I support your right to protest Sotomayor as much as I support their right to protest Kavanaugh.
The right has no problem with bounties being placed on a 10 year old rape victim and her doctor, but a appalled by a bounty for information on where a Republican legislator or SCOTUS member is dining.
As long as you’re equally comfortable with the idea of the same thing happening to Kagan or Sotomayor by a bunch of the types who stormed the Capitol, then enjoy the heck out of this.
We don’t want individuals with opposing views going after public/elected officials. That includes death threats.
No, but our laws apply to government officials as well, both protecting them and checking them. This includes laws against harassment and stalking. If you want to poo-poo that as your typical protected First Amendment speech, as “actions have consequences,” all I can say is, “be careful what you wish for.”
The Constitution is supreme. That means harassment and stalking laws cannot be applied in a way that violates the First Amendment.
Im aware of the law regarding protected classes and public accommodations. I just wanted to point out that you don’t believe in businesses turning people away for any reason. If it favors the Democratic agenda, and can be loosely tied to a protected class in any way, you’re very much in favor of telling businesses what to do via government force. It shouldn’t be surprising, Democrats have always been this way. They just went from “don’t bake the cake to a Black guy or we’ll shut down your business,” to “bake the cake for a gay wedding, or we’ll shut down your business.”
Correct, here’s the thing about the First Amendment, the government still has plenty of flexibility in regulating “time, place, and manner.” You want to protest the Dobbs decision, have at it. Don’t personally harass, stalk, or intimidate Supreme Court justices. You don’t just get to call laws or their enforcement First Amendment violations because the motivation behind the action or speech was political. If the laws are not content-restrictive (and these aren’t) they are much less likely to be seen as First Amendment violations.
Using stalking or harassment laws to arrest people who are nonviolently protesting powerful government officials in traditional public forums would run headlong into the First Amendment. They are allowed to seek Kavanaugh and the others out publicly and protest them. Unsurprisingly, D.C.'s stalking statute recognizes this and has an exception that states: "This section does not apply to constitutionally protected activity."
The Right spent decades deceptively waiting for this moment to overturn an individual right due to religious opposition under the guise of states rights. They made this pact, and per their own writing, knew what they were getting into. They played the activist role themselves, and can lay their bed in the consequences of it. Whatever you may feel about the liberal justices rulings, they aren’t reducing rights.
Texas Legislature Online - 87(R) History for SB 8 Oklahoma Governor Signs Bill That Bans Most Abortions
You’re equating peacefully protesting outside a restaurant with the storming the Capital? That type of convoluted thinking is so far out in left field that it reeks of desperation, hoping to find some sort of legitimate argument that isn’t shake your head funny. You failed.
