▲ 224 ▼ Kat Abughazaleh indicted over protests outside Chicago-area ICE facility (www.msnbc.com) submitted 10 months ago by TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -23 points 10 months ago (4 children) Banging on car windows is now a First Amendment right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] cycadophyta@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 child) Shut up bitch permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 11 points 10 months ago That's a better example. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago I mean, debatably yes. It really hinges on whose window, why the banging, and how the banging was done. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago (1 child) Yep just like manufacturing consent is a reason to indict someone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -3 points 10 months ago (1 child) Are you saying it is a right, but you don't agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago* (1 child) Actually I was walking right past what you were saying because I refuse to have this conversation. The actions depicted in every video I've seen of the incident do not constitute a threat to the officers or to property. The only reason this is being brought to a judge at all is because of politics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -4 points 10 months ago Yes, there seemed to be a disconnect. I think what you're saying is that the banging car windows is a pretense, and the real reason for the arrest is for exercising First Amendment rights. The reason given for the arrest is the banging and interference, and I thought you were saying those are protected. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 child) I can say cops banged on my window or hood many times and never faced charges. Heck friends have just indicate to me to lower the window, open the door, or pay attention. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Right, but if you went to someone's car while they were in it and banged on it even after they asked you to stop, that's not going to be considered protected speech. Go bang on your own car window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 point 10 months ago In my experience the cop will not stop but just expect compliance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cycadophyta@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 child) Shut up bitch permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 11 points 10 months ago That's a better example. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 11 points 10 months ago That's a better example. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago I mean, debatably yes. It really hinges on whose window, why the banging, and how the banging was done. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago (1 child) Yep just like manufacturing consent is a reason to indict someone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -3 points 10 months ago (1 child) Are you saying it is a right, but you don't agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago* (1 child) Actually I was walking right past what you were saying because I refuse to have this conversation. The actions depicted in every video I've seen of the incident do not constitute a threat to the officers or to property. The only reason this is being brought to a judge at all is because of politics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -4 points 10 months ago Yes, there seemed to be a disconnect. I think what you're saying is that the banging car windows is a pretense, and the real reason for the arrest is for exercising First Amendment rights. The reason given for the arrest is the banging and interference, and I thought you were saying those are protected. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -3 points 10 months ago (1 child) Are you saying it is a right, but you don't agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago* (1 child) Actually I was walking right past what you were saying because I refuse to have this conversation. The actions depicted in every video I've seen of the incident do not constitute a threat to the officers or to property. The only reason this is being brought to a judge at all is because of politics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -4 points 10 months ago Yes, there seemed to be a disconnect. I think what you're saying is that the banging car windows is a pretense, and the real reason for the arrest is for exercising First Amendment rights. The reason given for the arrest is the banging and interference, and I thought you were saying those are protected. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago* (1 child) Actually I was walking right past what you were saying because I refuse to have this conversation. The actions depicted in every video I've seen of the incident do not constitute a threat to the officers or to property. The only reason this is being brought to a judge at all is because of politics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -4 points 10 months ago Yes, there seemed to be a disconnect. I think what you're saying is that the banging car windows is a pretense, and the real reason for the arrest is for exercising First Amendment rights. The reason given for the arrest is the banging and interference, and I thought you were saying those are protected. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -4 points 10 months ago Yes, there seemed to be a disconnect. I think what you're saying is that the banging car windows is a pretense, and the real reason for the arrest is for exercising First Amendment rights. The reason given for the arrest is the banging and interference, and I thought you were saying those are protected. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 child) I can say cops banged on my window or hood many times and never faced charges. Heck friends have just indicate to me to lower the window, open the door, or pay attention. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Right, but if you went to someone's car while they were in it and banged on it even after they asked you to stop, that's not going to be considered protected speech. Go bang on your own car window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 point 10 months ago In my experience the cop will not stop but just expect compliance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Right, but if you went to someone's car while they were in it and banged on it even after they asked you to stop, that's not going to be considered protected speech. Go bang on your own car window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 point 10 months ago In my experience the cop will not stop but just expect compliance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 point 10 months ago In my experience the cop will not stop but just expect compliance. permalink fedilink source parent