Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
I will dissent.
I think that invoking a free speech defence for sabotage pictures is ridiculous. The 'speech' content of the pictures was zero.
You might as well say that if a guy went down the street shouting words into a super PA, physically harming people with 180 decibels at short range, he can't be arrested because that would violate his right of free speech.
You are harming a valuable principle by claiming there are no limits to it. There are limits to everything.
Are you sure you can't conceive of a rule against this that doesn't 'obligate' you to ban lots of other people? If not, 'rule of law' would seem to have severe drawbacks. Maybe it's not the great recipe for justice folks say it is.
Because I am asking for nothing less than justice. I think I am harmed by the conduct I have been objecting to, and I think it unfair, unjust, that I be required to put up with it.
|
I just have to say you had me LMAO.
But truthfully sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words, take the jackass photo for instance. Did you not understand what I was saying in my way?
"There are limits to everything." Even Complaining?