| ▲ | ostensible an hour ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | JKCalhoun an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| No. (I suppose I have a little more respect for her, though. We certainly need more citizens like her.) |
| |
| ▲ | scottyah 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No, we do not. Throwing a tantrum is not conducive. If you actually cared about preventing the proliferation of flock cameras, you would hate this woman's actions. No solid arguments, no discussions, just making the opposition look like fools who just have rage and are using this case to feel important. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > No solid arguments, no discussions From the article, she showed up to make solid arguments and have a discussion, but: "There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue." | |
| ▲ | chaps 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I care about preventing the proliferation of flock cameras (and more) and I do not hate this woman's actions even one bit. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dmos62 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The implication is that holding up middle-fingers is illegal? |
| |
| ▲ | ostensible an hour ago | parent [-] | | The middle finger itself is protected speech. It does not create immunity for disruptive conduct at a public meeting, and omitting the conduct immediately before the arrest is misleading. She got what she deserved. You can criticize. You cannot disrupt a public meeting and abuse people from the floor. | | |
| ▲ | pesus an hour ago | parent [-] | | To be clear, you think someone being loud in a public meeting deserves to be violently dragged from the room because you're offended by it? What other speech do you find violent removal worthy? Edit: I was shadow banned for my comments in this thread. You have been warned - no dissent against Flock (YC17) allowed. | | |
| ▲ | dekhn 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The way you write is very accusatory and has very simiplified logic. Many of us can be sympathetic while also knowing that disrupting a city council meeting is usually not an effective form of protest. | | |
| ▲ | pesus 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Maybe you should direct this comment towards the person I responded to and their litany of comments, because this applies far more there. I am far less concerned about hand wringing over being slightly impolite to people advocating for violent violation of people protesting the police state. Edit: this comment officially got me shadow banned and I can no longer comment. The irony and hypocrisy is off the charts. Don't offend the mods or their friends, people. Only they are allowed to get "emotional" and advocate for violence. | | |
| ▲ | dekhn 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The person you're replying to are making factual comments based on experience.
You are not; you are working from emotion, and interpreting the article in an unrealistic way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ElevenLathe an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What could you possibly mean by this? |
|
| ▲ | someonebaggy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not really? I don't see any part of the first amendment that says anything about middle fingers. |
|
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Flipping various members of your government the bird has probably been ruled free speech up and down every federal district in the country at this point. The Supreme court affirmed it at least once, maybe two or three times now. |
|
| ▲ | Razengan an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People who push shit like constant mass surveillance deserve much worse than middle fingers. |
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This has to be sarcasm, right? The added context is that she held up her middle fingers, as that somehow justifies anything but a shrug? |
