Harassment of public officials rears its ugly head

The irony in all of this is that you're employing the same rationale that AOC uses to justify behavior you so ardently opposed with Kavanaugh. In calling out her hypocrisy, you reveal your own.

 

or protesting vs rioting. or protesting vs mobbing.

 

In the case of the Kavanaugh protestors, they were both protesting and harassing. It's a different type of harassment, though. But both the awful guy here and those protestors receive First Amendment protection.

And yes, this guy is employing a form of protest. If he wants to call her a baby killer, that's his prerogative. But I think the sexual comments are grotesque. Can they arrest him for it? Not unless he's trespassing somewhere he's not allowed to be or tries to accost her.

 

This is more like celebrity stalking, which I suppose is legal up to a certain point, but extremely creepy. Doesn't seem all that political, but if you want to make being a grade A sex creep a 1st Amendment cause, I suppose that's your 1st Amendment prerogative. NAMBLA might appreciate the help!

 

Interesting . . . I find it distasteful and yet I think our feelings are otherwise in alignment.

 

Yeah, whether or not sexual harassment is protected speech under 1A is somewhat immaterial. Congress can protect its members by limiting access to the building and its grounds. Something another government branch did recently, but I can't quite remember which one.

 

I never mentioned 1A or its enforcement. That's your strawman.

Protesting is not the same as sexual harassment.

 

I think it's shameful that they did that.

 

It obviously makes you a hypocrite, but your failure in logic is equally troublesome.

 

All this confirms to me is that the MAGA incels who spend all day harassing her really want her. Hopefully she starts carrying a pistol, there's no telling what these deranged, sexually-repressed nerds will try.

 

So does this thread mean that you do? You becoming a leftist now? I thought that was our thing?

 

It does. You will always find some slight or justification for not granting protections to those you deem unworthy. That's just creating a system where your "rules" only bind the unworthy and only protect the worthy. Basically, you're offering us a real-time demonstration of Frank Wilhoit's memorable quote on conservatism: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

 

I'm just loving the OP's appeal to hypocrisy getting destroyed for his/her hypocrisy.