post 127: the desk sgt also told me that part of the reason that nothing was done was bacause of advice of the city atty and the fact that the person who owned the property had said nothing.
post 172: He stated to me on the phone that no police witnissed the incident! He asserted that the police were not on the scene, and were only notified after the fact. He also stated that a report has been taken, but barring witnisses he did not hold out much hope for a prosocution. This seems to conflict with something else he told me, which was that if the police had gone in to break up the protest there would have been a 180 degree turn in how the article was written, and it would have made the police look like bad guys. Of course, one has to wonder if the police weren't there then how could they have "gone in" and broken up the the protest?
The attorney was mentioned as a reason in #127, not #172; has the spin started?????
Destroying the property of others is not free speech. If some crack-smoking trust-fund loser wants to buy his own flag and burn it, that is one thing, if he destroys mine, I will bust his head.
Interfering with a military operation is not free speech, it is military action on behalf of a foreign power, and treason if you are an American citizen. "Shoot on sight" is a valid response, and I think it is time for a showdown on this in the courts.
Denying someone else the right to speak, as by heckling a non-communist or a terror-opponent on campus, is not free speech. This should be axiomatic, but post-modernism (the gonorrhea of philosophy) allows for almost anything, so long as it asserts superior social status via displays of authoritarian hypocrisy.
Assaulting passers-by is not free speech. This one alone would put Greenpiss and its jock-nazi goon squad out of business if it were enforced.
If Gen-H'ers have to be re-educated at bayonet-point, so be it. That is our obligation to the young.