> extending it in a way that distorted its meaning entirely to shoe-horn it back into your preferred view That's just nonsense. It's normal, in an intellectual

> extending it in a way that distorted its meaning entirely to shoe-horn it back into your preferred view That's just nonsense. It's normal, in an intellectual debate, to say, "Doesn't your position equate to X?" and get a response. That's what I was doing. People can distinguish between that, and actually intentionally misrepresenting someone else's position to make them look bad or "win" the argument. I restated the issue in simple terms, and I don't see why you didn't just respond to that directly. Again: I think the public has a right to determine how public property is disposed of. I guess you don't? Because writing messages badmouthing a business day after day on the local sidewalk is a public disturbance of public property (the sidewalk). I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with free speech. It's a property issue. > You further suggested that there ought to be some kind of litmus test for who deserves First Amendment protections. I explicitly said the opposite of that in my very first comment on the issue.