Where does free speech end and criminality begin?

“Protestors” block entrance to ER

While there are violent protests to the unintentional deaths of suspects in custody, few seem upset by the repeated cold blooded ambushes of police officers. But we all recognize the shooters as criminals. The question is are the people who attempt to block the entrance to the ER “protestors” or accomplices?

21 thoughts on “Where does free speech end and criminality begin?

  1. Promoting fear of “the other” seems to be Trump’s strategy for further dividing the country and getting away with his corruption and grotesque incompetence that are off all the charts. It is going to fail like everything else Trump does.

    Whatever ails this country, let us not forget that Trump is the President and has been for almost four years. Many thing have gone horribly wrong BECAUSE he is the President. At least 100,000 avoidable deaths from Covid-19 is just one example. That conservative estimate is based on the premise that a competent President would have performed at least as well as European countries in containing and controlling the damage. The 52 countries that WHO includes in “Europe” have three times our population and about 1/3 the Covid cases and deaths.


    Your post is a good example of the the constant misinformation Trump depends on. For example, that “there are violent protests to the unintentional deaths of suspects” is an “alternative fact.” The protests are overwhelmingly peaceful and would be more peaceful of the likes of the “Proud Boys” would stay away. Demonizing and criminalizing legitimate protest is one more step towards the Stalinist future that Trump and his supporters seem to long for.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. It is very much on topic because the gross exaggeration of the “violent protests” and the pretense that nobody cares about the lives and safety of the police – only those of “suspects” – is part and parcel of Trump’s desperate and divisive propaganda strategy of division, hatred and fear. The implication of your question is that there is a significant number of who cheer for police being murdered and who applaud outrageous behavior such as blocking access to an ER (IF that even happened). There are not, though you would never know that inside the Trump propaganda bubble.

        Maybe you truly do not understand that you are carrying water for this never-ending river of divisive bull, but you are.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The issue has nothing at all to do with President Trump.

          The in-custody deaths happened in cities run by Democrats for decades. The police response to the riots has been under the direction of Democrat governors and mayors, except where Federal buildings were under attack.

          The protestors are overwhelmingly socialists and Democrats.

          No Trump in there anywhere.


          1. You are completely missing the point. Is it on purpose? I did not state or imply that Trump is responsible for in-custody deaths. I said nothing about the behavior of the police one way or another.

            There is no “issue.”
            Violence is bad.
            Murdering police is bad.
            Blocking access to emergency rooms – if that actually happened – is bad.

            The point is you are carrying water for dishonest propaganda when you pretend there is some disagreement on any of these points.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. Oh Geeesh. The babbler in chief returns to share yet another senseless helping of word salad fit for a classic Leninist. Here’s some cheese, go find your whine.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Seeing as how your childish off topic nonsense is a violation yet again, perhaps you should be permanently banned from attempting to offer insane babble to the adults here.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “I really don’t want to ban anyone or limit discussion, but if the tone deteriorates to what it has been on the past, I will.”

            Please keep in mind that Mr. Smith CONSTANTLY attacks posts, not for their stance, but because of where they come from. He brings nothing to any discussion except actually saying. EVERY TIME, what you have made clear about Democrats. The difference is you attempt to discuss, even though you disagree. Mr. Smith throws out virulent attacks that bring NOTHING to any of our discussions.


          2. He’s just an agitator that can not accept the present or anyone that does not agree with him. When he couldn’t drop the f word or other obscenities he took his ball and went home. I didn’t miss him.


          3. “He’s just an agitator that can not accept the present or anyone that does not agree with him. ”

            You posted to Mr. Smith about Mr. Smith? Interesting. Not sure what Freud would have to say about that.


          4. You really should address those remarks to those who are actually lowering the tone. I am not one of them and I never have been. I responded in good faith and coherently to what was posted. When challenged, I explained why I thought it was “on topic.”

            But I cannot help but note that these two ad hominem posts by bobrsmith and nivlac are exactly the kind of personal attacks that ought to get someone removed. In the past the tone went downhill because people like these two were not brought up short. IMHO.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “The question is are the people who attempt to block the entrance to the ER ‘protestors’ or accomplices?”

    Fair question. There’s not much information to go on, but the two events — first the shooting, then the protest at the hospital — surely appear to be related. We’ll have to wait and what the truth about that may be.

    The free speech issue is more philosophical. I’m of the view that rights are unalienable only so long as exercising them can be justified ethically. In shorthand, no one has a right to do wrong. Blocking the entrance to the hospital — indeed, blocking any public thoroughfare — is inherently wrong. So, I would say the protestors had no free speech right to do it.


  3. Not sure what you’re getting at?

    Personally, I don’t care if folks are peacefully protesting. But impeding traffic, committing acts of arson and vandalism should not be tolerated.


    1. RE: “But impeding traffic, committing acts of arson and vandalism should not be tolerated.”

      Agreed. I wanted to point out that rights are called “rights” for a reason. It is because they are not “wrongs.”

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Well, the SCOTUS has kinda ruled on that, and then ruled again decreasing the distance. Look up how close to Women’s Clinics a group of Pro-Life protestors can get. Should think the same rules apply. BTW, I think the court says it applies to all establishments, except of course, the Supreme Court, where the minimum distance is somewhere across the street.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. They have, there is a ruling on access. If the protestors blocked access, it’s the same as blocking access to a clinic. I should think the FACE Act applies. The act says blocking access to “reproductive healthcare”, but since living is a prerequisite to reproduction, FACE can easily be extended to hospitals in general.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Well, they can stand to the side and be typical mouthy Democrat babies all they want but when they obstruct emergency services, it is a crime. Yes, even in California, penal code 148 (a)(1)

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s