I think you are conflating speech and action. He was not arrested for having that idea, or communicating it.
He was detained for attempting to disrupt a public ceremony.
The right to speech does not come with the right to do it anywhere at anytime.
I think you are conflating speech and action. He was not arrested for having that idea, or communicating it.
He was detained for attempting to disrupt a public ceremony.
The right to speech does not come with the right to do it anywhere at anytime.
Holding a sign is disrupting?
Yes, it would certainly be distracting at the very least, but also offensive.
'Disruptive'. And intended to be, not an accident.
Even the US has laws on where and when it is appropriate.
He is allowed to have a contrary view, but nobody wanted to listen to him, so now he maliciously tries to hijack the attention from a public ceremony.
> Holding a sign is disrupting?
Yes, it would certainly be distracting at the very least, but also offensive.
'Disruptive'. And intended to be, not an accident.
Even the US has laws on where and when it is appropriate.
He is allowed to have a contrary view, but nobody wanted to listen to him, so now he maliciously tries to hijack the attention from a public ceremony.
If I'm only allowed to exercise my rights in times and places approved by the government, they're not worth much, eh? I don't believe any opinions or ideas are so sacred that they cannot be questioned.
Also night in jail without charges pressed doesn't make this better. That basically proves there was no justifiable reason to arrest him, yet he suffered as a result. It's an easy way for authorities to suppress opinions they don't like.