DC Targeted Demonstrations at Residences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

Sounds like a perfectly valid time, place and manner restriction. Time to send these a$$holes packing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Protests outside journalists’ homes smack of intimidation of the free press.

The news outlets all have DC HQs. Protest there.

Gee, kinda like protests outside of justices’ homes? The left is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Protests outside journalists’ homes smack of intimidation of the free press.

What?!?! Says who?


So protesting outside Brett Cavanaugh’s house is fine but protesting outside Eugene Robinson’s or Jennifer Rubin’s house is “intimidation”?

What a bunch of bullsh!t.

DP. I don't really support protesting outside of Brett Kavanaugh's house, either, but there IS a difference between protesting people who are in or nominated to be in actual positions of power and protesting people who just report or comment on the news. What is Jennifer Rubin supposed to do about the Supreme Court?

Jennifer Rubin is responsible for the content she writes. She is a fair and legitimate target of protest. She chose to be a journalist, she needs to accept accountability for her work. All journalists do.

I guess I don't really see what a protest outside of their house is supposed to accomplish, since all she can do is write.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Protests outside journalists’ homes smack of intimidation of the free press.

What?!?! Says who?


So protesting outside Brett Cavanaugh’s house is fine but protesting outside Eugene Robinson’s or Jennifer Rubin’s house is “intimidation”?

What a bunch of bullsh!t.

DP. I don't really support protesting outside of Brett Kavanaugh's house, either, but there IS a difference between protesting people who are in or nominated to be in actual positions of power and protesting people who just report or comment on the news. What is Jennifer Rubin supposed to do about the Supreme Court?

Jennifer Rubin is responsible for the content she writes. She is a fair and legitimate target of protest. She chose to be a journalist, she needs to accept accountability for her work. All journalists do.

I guess I don't really see what a protest outside of their house is supposed to accomplish, since all she can do is write.

Should we have a government list of approved protestees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near a journalist who's been protested over the Gaza war, and I find the protests annoying, but... not sure government restrictions on speech is an appropriate response.

\

Go ahead and google time, place and manner restrictions. Constitutional since 1965, with periodic tweaks


Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Justice Goldberg: "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time."

You can still unleash your political speech, but not at 4 am using at professional PA system in a 100% residential neighborhood.

Yeah, that's true, I still just feel uneasy about the message this is sending (and, for the record, I think protesting a war outside of journalists' homes makes no sense at all at best).

Protests outside journalists’ homes smack of intimidation of the free press.

What?!?! Says who?


So protesting outside Brett Cavanaugh’s house is fine but protesting outside Eugene Robinson’s or Jennifer Rubin’s house is “intimidation”?

What a bunch of bullsh!t.

DP. I don't really support protesting outside of Brett Kavanaugh's house, either, but there IS a difference between protesting people who are in or nominated to be in actual positions of power and protesting people who just report or comment on the news. What is Jennifer Rubin supposed to do about the Supreme Court?

Jennifer Rubin is responsible for the content she writes. She is a fair and legitimate target of protest. She chose to be a journalist, she needs to accept accountability for her work. All journalists do.

I guess I don't really see what a protest outside of their house is supposed to accomplish, since all she can do is write.

Should we have a government list of approved protestees?

Thinking a protest is pointless isn't at all the same as thinking it should be banned.