2 ms·
> Furthermore, you're really blaming the victim in your analysis of Charlottesville. Well they're both the victims and the perpetrators. It's not legal to driv
by Alex3917 7y ago
> Furthermore, you're really blaming the victim in your analysis of Charlottesville.
Well they're both the victims and the perpetrators. It's not legal to drive over them, but it's also not legal for them to try to prevent the people from organizing the rally from speaking.
Stuff like this has been happening for hundreds of years, there's actually a reason why the laws are the way they are.
- aqme28 7y agoPeople _are_ allowed to shout over protesters. It's legal to do that.
- Alex3917 7y ago> People _are_ allowed to shout over protesters. It's legal to do that. Sometimes. If organizing a rally requires a government permit, then having the government give another permit for the same time and place to people whose aim was to disrupt the rally would probably violate the first amendment rights of the rally organizers. And that's basically what happened in Charlottesville, the rally organizers had permits and the protestors did not.
- aqme28 7y ago> having the government give another permit for the same time and place to people whose aim was to disrupt the rally would probably violate the first amendment rights of the rally organizers. And You keep saying that this violates the first amendment rights of the protesters but yet again you're not backing that up in any way. How does this violate their first amendment right? I'm just not seeing it.