lol
I can tell a well reasoned and rational discussion is going to follow.
Don't you see how impossible public life would be if each person had such as right?
No. We do it everyday. Go outside more.
You do not have the right to speech anywhere at anytime. There are limitations, many.
You do not have the right to harass people, individually, or as a group. Holding a sign that is attempting to provoke is distracting, and malicious.
It has nothing to do with free speech.
No idea what US laws have to do with this
Because US prides itself on free speech, but even they have laws against this type of behaviour.
lol
Let me give a couple of different examples to see if you can get my point.
Should Chinese citizens be prohibited from holding a sign critizing their leaders in Tianimen Square? Should Russians be able to hold a sign during the victory day parade mentioning Soviet war crimes? According to your argument this is disrupting and malicous so their governments are justified to arrest them.
Please extend things I say out of context, and extrapolate them to a retarded extreme.
Then misrepresent my viewpoint by putting words in my mouth.
I'm going to leave you waiting to figure out how long until I bother to waste my time with a serious reply.
<You do not have the right to harass people, individually, or as a group.>
I was pretty clear that harassment is not protected. Holding a sign up is not harassment. If your feelings are so fragile that you think people with signs need to be locked in cages, think about how fragile your system of ethics is.
<Holding a sign that is attempting to provoke is distracting, and malicious.>
How do you know it was attempt to provoke? Churchill's actions were responsible for starvation in India. Read about the Bengal famine of 1943. Most people are not aware of this, so his actions might very well be he is seeking to educate the audience. Why is this sign malicious? If I held a sign that said "Firebombing Dresden was correct" is that malicious? What about "The dead killed in the war were necessary for our freedom". Hopefully you get the point. What you think the speaker's motivations does not matter. If somebody gets to make a value judgement about what my speech is and if it should be allowed, then we don't have free speech. If somebody can invalidate my speech so easily, then the right is worth as much as the right to vote in a one party state.
If your feelings are so fragile that
What are you talking about? Feeling has nothing to do with it. Are you trying to twist what I say in an effort to 'win' a debate, or do you genuinely not understand what I am attempting to say? I going to skip most of your comment since it is not connected to anything I'm saying.
The speech is fine. It's his actions are not acceptable. Speech is not unlimited. Your rights become null when they start trampling on others.
Every civilized nation has laws governing the use of speech in public.
We know what his intent is because he's holding a sign declaring it, and we're not retarded.
Any reasonable person would expect to get a reaction by doing that. That is a shit-head action.
The point is: In this case it's not about speech at all.
And as an extra: Sometimes limiting actions is a means of protecting rights not removing them.
lol "distracting". There is no guarantee when you participate in public life that you will not be distracted. How absolutely ridiculous.
It doesn't matter if nobody likes my opinion or doesn't want to hear it. That doesn't mean I lose my rights of free speech. Once again, there is no guarantee when you move about in public life that nothing annoying you, distracting you, or saying something you disagree with won't happen. Don't you see how impossible public life would be if each person had such as right? I could instantly silence anyone and have them arrested because they hurt my feelings.
No idea what US laws have to do with this. Holding a sign up anywhere should not be a crime, and you should not be held in care overnight for doing it.