It is widely understood that "freedom of speech" does not license someone to stand up

[Atticus]

and falsely scream "FIRE!" in a packed theater. The inherent and serious danger of such conduct to life and limb far outweighs the relatively minor curtailment of one person's right. Why cannot similar sound reasoning be used to prohibit carrying firearms at these astroturfed "anti-lockdown protests"?

You have protesters and anti-protesters who essentially hate each other with the anti-lockdown ignoramuses screaming obscenities and brandishing assault rifles and other firearms. I have yet to see any reports of the sane side carrying guns.

Is this not also a situation posing a serious danger to life and limb? Have any of the 3 percenters or other genitally-challenged mopes been threatened by those favoring the stay at home policy?

These yahoos aren't "packing heat" for self protection and any of them who says that they are is a mealy-mouthed punk-ass liar. They carry their AR-15s and their Glocks to INTIMIDATE anyone who dares to disagree with their idiocy.

They should be given the option of disarming or not participating. And, to anticipate the few who will say such an approach would "only be asking for trouble", I say "bullshit"! THEY are asking for trouble by their public bullying. I'm just suggesting we give them what they've asked for. If they refuse to either disarm or leave, police should treat them the same way they'd treat any other armed belligerent who refuses to obey a lawful order from law enforcement.

In closing, this OP was "triggered" by photos of several nasty-assed militia types waving AR-15s and shouting insults from the balcony section of the Michigan legislative chamber while lawmakers---some in bulletproof vests--- tried to work. This crap cannot be permitted to continue.

[gibraltar72]

1. Terrorists spreading a deadly Virus.

[crickets]

2. They were allowed into the legislative chamber with guns? That's insane. nt

[SoonerPride]

3. They weren't "allowed in" they pushed their way in.

They should be arrested and if they resisted that, they should be shot.

[crickets]

6. Thanks, found a thread with links.

Oh, yes. These fools definitely need to be arrested. Yeesh.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213371224

[3Hotdogs]

14. They can't be arrested because the N.R.A. backed legislature

passed open carry laws to allow this.

Now, their action is biting them in the ass and they don't know what to do about it. If they try to revoke the open carry laws, there will be armed assh-- sorry, protestors at their houses, following them and their families ...

So there, you have it.

[NNadir]

4. Well, the longer they're out there, the more of them get sick.

Some of them, of course, will die, and some won't. Some of those who don't die will be disabled. In any case, they will be bringing us closer to herd immunity.

It will probably be the only decent thing they do in their lives.

[mopinko]

5. further, it is illegal to start a fire in a theater.

no doubt illegal for the management to stand by and warm their hands in the fire, and work out schemes to sell marshmallows.

[TDale313]

7. Rhetorical question, but...

If the “protesters” had been mostly people of color, brandishing semi-automatic weapons... anyone believe this would have played out the same way?

[47of74]

11. Nah they would have secretly evacuated the legislators and staff...

...then leveled the place.

[old guy]

8. In a country where the rule of law, hell in a country that has any rules, you would be correct.

Sadly, that is not the country we are living in.

[ffr]

9. If only they were non-white

The outcome for them may not be what they were thinking of.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. As long as they aren't brandishing, they aren't breaking the law.

It's a pretty stupid thing for them to do though, and will result in new laws if they fuck up even a tiny bit.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

12. I don't think carrying assault weapons should be considered a peaceful protest

That should be considered criminal threatening at least, maybe terrorism. I am OK with people protesting, but not protesting while carrying weapons.

[The Mouth]

13. There are traditional common-law exceptions to freedom of speech

-Defamation of character ('Libel' and 'Slander'), note that a statement being actually true is an absolute defense against this.
-Incitement to Riot.
-arguably, releasing information the government thinks should be classified (needless to say nowhere nearly as absolutly obviously wrong as the above two)

Beware the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater analogy, it was first used to justify locking up anti-war protesters (in WW1, a very stupid war which we had no reason to be involved in). Schenck v. United States is no better than Dredd Scott as far as a precedent we wish to respect or preserve.


The verbiage of the First Amendment uses the word "peaceably" but as someone who is pretty pro RKBA, these stupid assholes are doing their cause no good.

Your, or my opinion of the validity of what the protestors are protesting means nothing, indeed the less popular the position the more it needs to be protected, that's why Nazis have the unarguable Constitutional right to march and rally.