> I can't tell if your comment is a parody, or if the "free speech absolutists" have really gotten this ridiculous. Yes, I believe in free speech. If you belie

> I can't tell if your comment is a parody, or if the "free speech absolutists" have really gotten this ridiculous. Yes, I believe in free speech. If you believe this is ridiculous, it's on you. > You think literally blasting someone in the face with dangerous smoke ... Potentially blinding someone ... Now you are being ridiculous: the "danger" of this smoke is very relative: yes, particulates can be hazardous to health, but only in the long run. It's not like throwing acid at someone: it can't cause blindness! This smoke may only reduce visibility a little and very temporarily unless it's done in a tunnel. I think it's not a nice thing to do (pollution etc), but I still prefer having laws protecting important concepts like free speech, even if these laws also let people do things I don't like: the concepts these laws protect are more important that the consequences of a few isolated individual actions. Also, intention matters: if the person doing that is aiming at cyclist faces or focusing on tunnels to risk causing accidents, it's very different from sending smoke towards the open sky and away from anyone: one is malicious and illegal, the other is expressing a political opinion and may be protected. It's ok to dislike some political opinions, but it's not ok to try to regulate speech with the power of law.