Who's threatening them?
Ban on protests in front of homes signed by Gov. DeSantis
- Thread starter AProudLefty
- Start date
Who's threatening them?
No it isn't. He has a valid point. What constitutes a protest? Signs? Shirts? Words? Chalk messages?
One of Lesion's slavish fangrrl's said the other day that Lesion doesn't have socks; he has "alternate accounts." Kelly Anne, is that you?
tigerred59
Verified User
People who protest in front of private residences in Florida can face jail time and fines under a bill signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Anyone who protests in front of a private residence in Florida can face jail time and fines under a bill Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Monday.
The legislation makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to protest in a manner that is aimed at intentionally harassing or disturbing someone in their home. Violators face 60 days in jail and fines of up to $500.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ban-protests-front-homes-signed-gov-desantis-84762843
Wow he doesn't even pretend. He truly is a fascist. People being thrown in jail for exercising their First Amendment rights?
I predict many people will be protesting in front of his house to spite him. They won't be enough rooms in jail.
Man, I don't give a F what you do in Fla....if you black or brown and you piss off white ppl, the next damn day, the Nazi got a law against you. Thank the Cubans for this guy, they love him.
I decided they were criminals -- which, as you know, is true. I'd certainly have preferred if they could have been convinced to leave without any rough means. Unfortunately, more than a few of them were after blood, and the police had hard choices to make. Fortunately, the way things turned out, most of the rioters ended up leaving completely unharmed, and the only ones who faced the roughest treatment were the ones literally breaking through the barriers at fall-back positions and putting our representatives' lives in danger. Thank goodness they were stopped.
[The capitol is public property]
That doesn't mean anyone is allowed anywhere, obviously. Every US military base is also public property. So are the evidence lockers at police facilities, and the inside of super-max prisons, and national nuclear research labs, the vault at Fort Knox, every US Navy ship, and so on. The fact we collectively own those places does not mean that We the People have decided that any individual person is allowed to wander around there any time he wants. We have set up rules. If, say, you decide you want to waltz into the hangers at Homey Airport (Area 51), without authorization, expect to be stopped, even if you're just on a peaceful photo-taking outing. And if you show up with thousands of your buddies and force your way through security barriers, expect to face increasingly harsh measures to disperse the crowd.
Wouldn't it be better to post cases that were on point? Your lack of focus really derails any hope of having a meaningful discussion here.
First, a pet peeve: it's "would have." "Would of" just sounds silly.
Anyway, I didn't say a word about whether the Sons of Liberty would have rejected state power to ban this. Reread.
What lie do you think I told? Be specific, please.
We'll see.
Right now, the movement is in the opposite direction -- for example, the five arch-conservatives on the high court, in 2010, for the first time, decided that the second amendment applies against the states (something that had been true with regard to the first amendment for many generations, but had never been considered true with regard to the second until then). I can't rule out the Supreme Court effectively reversing course and overturning generations of precedent by saying the first amendment no longer applies to the states. With this pack of clowns, anything is possible. But it's hard to picture what nonsense they would pen to try to justify that reversal.
The RWers would be perfectly happy with that as long as the crowd was composed of people they don't like. I.e., BLM, anti-war protesters, libtards, etc.
One of Lesion's slavish fangrrl's said the other day that Lesion doesn't have socks; he has "alternate accounts." Kelly Anne, is that you?
LOL Was liquor involved or just lust?
on point - like upholding the right to harrass me outside of my place of residence?
you find such a case - good luck
you reread shit head. you claimed this is exactly what they feared. They did not fear the state doing this - they agreed with it.
I was specific retard. they did not fear their state - you claimed this is exactly what they feared - a state having the power to do this - is a huge lie. you are a huge liar.
also a retard for making me explain something so obvious over and over
We're talking about protests, not harassment. Try to focus, little one.
What makes you think that? Be specific, please.
What makes you think I said they did? Be specific, please.
What lie is it that you think I told? If you could quote the exact statement you think was a lie, that would be helpful.
Yes, I agree you seem a little mentally delayed, but don't worry about it. I can patiently walk you through this at a pace you can handle, if you'll just be specific in identifying which parts of what I said confused you.
"mostly peaceful protests" lmao. sure thing partisan doucebag
your words. we are discussing what states can do and you - a retard - said
retard said:
a state limiting speech is not what they had in mind retard
Who are you quoting?
Specifically, which ones?
They were attempting to protect the right to political protests. In the Constitution, the founders were focused on the federal government, but founders also were involved in some state constitutions. For example, the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont state constitutions date to the era and have very similar language protecting free speech and peaceable assembly. So, it's clear what the founders would have thought about attempts to abridge those rights, whether carried out by the federal government, or by some tin-pot governor of a backwater state like Florida.
the founders founded a central government for the purpose of national defense. The founders would of been fine with citizens of the state banning you from protesting outside of my home.
so which are you:
A liar
B ignorant
C both
That was among their several goals. They also founded it to promote the general welfare and establish justice. It wasn't just a mutual defense treaty among sovereign nations. It was an attempt to form a more perfect union than had been accomplished with the articles of confederation.
I feel like I should be charging. So much of online discourse consists of liberals giving wingnuts a free education when it comes to basic civics material they should have gotten in elementary school. It's sad how woefully ignorant many Americans are of their own history.
so you are an ignorant, retarded narcissist. what a combo
to show how absurd your claims are - states had established churches - and the founders were fine with it.
so yeah - you lost the debate. the founders did not agree with your concerns of 1st amendment powers in their respective states
Yes, establishing justice, promoting the general welfare, and forming a more perfect union are a terrific combo of goals.
Which claim, specifically, do you think that contradicts?
I understand it's hard to be losing this debate so badly, but please try to resist the urge to run away, like most right-wingers. Try to answer honestly and specifically, and we can start to identify your errors and to remedy them. I'd hate to just leave you in this state of abject ignorance of civics.
the same one as before shit stain
you want to believe this would of outraged the founders - it would not. they would be outraged by you - not this
Which one is that, specifically?
They would definitely have opposed the idea of a government trying to block people from peaceably assembling to make their political voices heard.