Why don't peaceful protesters just start fighting back against police brutality? Think about it: We still have the right to self-defense, even against cops. That doesn't go away just because the person killing us is wearing a badge.

In most peaceful protests, the protesters often out number the cops twenty to one. If, in addition to first, the protesters were to also exercise their second amendment rights at the rallies and come armed, then they would be able to tear corrupt cops limb from limb. If police try to amp up their violence in response, we amp our self-defense in response to them. We outnumber the police, so if we both give it everything we've got, the police will eventually lose the war.

Now, I understand that people doing these protests want to make it clear that they respect the rule of law, even if the police won't. Here's the thing, though: That's not getting us anywhere. So far, there has not yet been one single solitary state government, or even a single municipality, who has passed any substantial police reform legislation. All we've seen so far are curfews designed to keep people from protesting. Not one state or local government has actually given us a solution to the problems we're protesting over.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I can certainly understand wanting to respect the rule of law, but we also need to be pragmatic. The rule of law can only get us so much when the deck is intentionally stacked against the protesters. Do you want the rule of law, or do you want to fucking live? Because at this point, it's clear you can only have one.

Interesting isn't it?

the first amendment prohibits the u.s. government from infringing on civilians' right to free speech. for the sake of simplicity, let's define heckling as the attempt to drown out a speaker, performed by a civilian. if the heckler isn't associated with the government or any public institution, why isn't their counterspeech protected under the first amendment?

cross-posted on r/legal.

I want to get into first amendment auditing but I'm concerned with stories of police seizing and destroying recorded video evidence. Outside of live streaming where it's automatically uploaded, how could I ensure this would not happen to me?

I am 16 years of age and a proud libertarian. I am unable to vote so I want to speak my mind outside of a voting poll. I have check my local ordinances and state code and it is legal for me to loiter and it is considered public property as long as I am more that 40 feet from all entrances to the poll. I know I have the right to stand there and pass out flyers, but at 16 years of age I would really not like to get arrested for “disorderly conduct”. My father is a police officer of the county I reside in and I have had debates with him on what disorderly conduct truly means. He basically believes that it can be used in almost any circumstance. For those who would like to help me research, I live in Virginia. I’m not going to say which county out of respect for my dad, but the disorderly conduct local ordinance matches the state code exactly. Also, the polling place I plan to go to is an elementary school so I’m unsure if that changes anything. Please let me know if what I plan on doing is entirely legal. I’m pretty sure it is but I don’t want to go there with a serious risk of being arrested even if what I’m doing is legal. Thank you.

Question, is it okay to de-platform a social media app like parlor and cut off all forms of accessing it. for what they say is the app was used to “organize violent protests”. I remember a couple months to years before, Facebook was used to platform a couple of mass killers and they were even using live video for minutes even house before the crisis, while proceeding to shoot innocent people all live. Yet Facebook was never taken down. Is this is a violation of our first amendment rights, especially when Twitter and Facebook now has every ability to ban anyone they want?

Please sign the petition to get YouTube to enforce rules against these people who try to take advantage of the 1st amendment! They spread misinformation, they actively harass people for monetary gain, and really don't express what the 1st amendment really is
https://www.change.org/no_more_frauditing

Why are the verboten topics on Reddit all foundational to

1. Israel's claim to exist and violently defend itself, no matter the cost to others.

2. America et al's need to violently destroy all of Israel's neighboring enemies.

3. Americans' need to disarm themselves.

Seems fishy.

I am wondering how is this different from pastors asking people to go to church on palm Sunday during the COVID19 pandemic.

Throughout history there have been many cases involving artistic films, movies, and other kinds of A/V material that half had to be deeply scrutinized to be able to avoid a publication restraint. Many of those have had the disagreements with the communications decency act and the FCC corresponding to their sectors. This said, and just in case you’ve it, where do you guys think some of the content of the new Borat film will collide with the first amendment protected speech foundments? I know that’s so close to the elections, political speech is in risk here, commercial speech should be scrutinized in my opinion as well.

If anyone has any advice, feel free to share!

My brand new General Manager, as of Monday, has decided that the hill she wants to die on, is my American flag. I have a 3’x5’ flag mounted on my roof, but she claims it’s a safety issue. Her reasoning is, it makes my car a bigger target for people looking to rob delivery drivers. Does she have any ground to tell me what I can’t put on my vehicle?