Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xocet

(4,442 posts)
11. Why don't you elaborate further on what you think "...on an implicit threat..." means?
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:52 PM
Apr 2014

Maybe you see the video differently than I do, but it seems unlikely that you mean to actually discuss whether the First Amendment should shield minority voices from intimidation by the implicit threat of violence. You did see the police attempting to stop multiple people from crossing the street, didn't you?

You are kidding yourself if you don't think that that action is threatening - especially when those crossing the street could be the vanguard of an angry mob. Words are fine - threatening actions are not.

If you were ever to find yourself in a similar position, I doubt that you would appreciate your present argument very much.









Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On Hate Speech and Puttin...»Reply #11