What you're suggesting is
Ain't no suggesting. She literally broke the law, incited violence with a political agenda. That's straight up terrorism.
>What you're suggesting is
Ain't no suggesting. She literally broke the law, incited violence with a political agenda. That's straight up terrorism.
Looks like you responded to the wrong post.
Just to clarify, I was using those as examples to compare your definition of rioting. There aren't many easy examples in the UK like there are in the US. I wasn't conflating UK legislation with US events, hence my last line about the UK already being too much of an authoritarian dump anyway.
Careful where you tread buddy. What you're suggesting is dangerously close to making it illegal to criticize politicians. Putting the law aside, if you're going to put yourself in a position of ruling over 328 million people and making decisions that could shatter their livelihoods on a whim, then you better at least have a thick enough skin to deal with what they have to say, and how often they decide to say it.
From your perspective, the first amendment only applies on public property, right? I can absolutely agree with that, as you said, public property and private property can't be treated the same. But if that's the case, shouldn't we extend that to public citizens/government actors as well? Harassing an elected politician is not the same as harassing a regular person, for the exact same reason that protesting on public property is not the same as protesting at someone's house without their consent.