Rumeysa Ozturk

[TigerGrowls]

Blocking a business from being open with ropes and chains is not protected by the first amendment. She broke the law as the article you provided stated.

Theres always two sides to a story just this protestor story has two sides. You provided the DOJ prosecutor description of what occurred at the abortion clinic which was contested by the protestors unsuccessfully and then they put her in prison.

Harlow said the 2020 incident took place at a clinic run by Dr. Cesare Santangelo, a doctor who has been accused of conducting late-term abortions. She described the demonstration as peaceful.

"We were there to intervene, to put our lives on the line, to intervene … between the death of the child and the abortionist, peacefully," she said. "[We were] there trying to talk to the mother. ... They feel forced into it for whatever their circumstances are. So, we need to try to surround them with love, with support."

Harlow, a Catholic, explained that she became pro-life when she saw Lennart Nilsson's photograph of an 18-week-old fetus published in Life magazine in 1965.

In the end I am just saying there are strong similarities in the 1st amendment arguments for these two cases.

 

[TheValley91]

Theres always two sides to a story just this protestor story has two sides. You provided the DOJ prosecutor description of what occurred at the abortion clinic which was contested by the protestors unsuccessfully and then they put her in prison.

Harlow said the 2020 incident took place at a clinic run by Dr. Cesare Santangelo, a doctor who has been accused of conducting late-term abortions. She described the demonstration as peaceful.

"We were there to intervene, to put our lives on the line, to intervene … between the death of the child and the abortionist, peacefully," she said. "[We were] there trying to talk to the mother. ... They feel forced into it for whatever their circumstances are. So, we need to try to surround them with love, with support."

Harlow, a Catholic, explained that she became pro-life when she saw Lennart Nilsson's photograph of an 18-week-old fetus published in Life magazine in 1965.

In the end I am just saying there are strong similarities in the 1st amendment arguments for these two cases.

Forcefully blocking a business and writing an article aren’t the same thing.

I’m guessing you don’t believe the reported incident? You think it was a lie that they used rope and chains to block the building from being open?

 

[TigerGrowls]

Forcefully blocking a business and writing an article aren’t the same thing.

I’m guessing you don’t believe the reported incident? You think it was a lie that they used rope and chains to block the building from being open?

Yep we need to watch those raw boned 75 year old grandma's. They can be rough i guess?

 

[TheValley91]

Yep we need to watch those raw boned 75 year old grandma's. They can be rough i guess?

Do you think it was a lie or not.

 

[WapPride]

Yep we need to watch those raw boned 75 year old grandma's. They can be rough i guess?

Is your argument here that laws should no longer apply to people once a certain age limit is reached?

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Theres always two sides to a story just this protestor story has two sides. You provided the DOJ prosecutor description of what occurred at the abortion clinic which was contested by the protestors unsuccessfully and then they put her in prison.

Harlow said the 2020 incident took place at a clinic run by Dr. Cesare Santangelo, a doctor who has been accused of conducting late-term abortions. She described the demonstration as peaceful.

"We were there to intervene, to put our lives on the line, to intervene … between the death of the child and the abortionist, peacefully," she said. "[We were] there trying to talk to the mother. ... They feel forced into it for whatever their circumstances are. So, we need to try to surround them with love, with support."

Harlow, a Catholic, explained that she became pro-life when she saw Lennart Nilsson's photograph of an 18-week-old fetus published in Life magazine in 1965.

In the end I am just saying there are strong similarities in the 1st amendment arguments for these two cases.

So when you read "we were there to intervene, to put our lives on the line" do you think peacefully praying to the side is what would put their life at risk?

To be clear, someone blocking a roadway, or in this case barring the door or whatever, is a peaceful protest. But that doesn't mean it is lawful.

 

[homeyg_c]

It's funny how you guys conveniently have no idea on certain topics. I believe in first amendment protections for American citizens.

That's because you have to remember where these folks get their news/information or lack, thereof. All MSM outlets omit almost anything that doesn't support their desired narrative. I don't necessarily blame these folks for not knowing certain things because of where they receive their news. I do blame them for not trying to find different sources of information. Honestly, if you ingest material from CNN, MSNBC and the like, I can't really consider you all that intelligent. TigerGrowls, you can't fix this level of stupidity in these folks. They're hopeless. Best to ignore these imbeciles and move forward.

 

[dpic73]

That's because you have to remember where these folks get their news/information or lack, thereof. All MSM outlets omit almost anything that doesn't support their desired narrative. I don't necessarily blame these folks for not knowing certain things because of where they receive their news. I do blame them for not trying to find different sources of information. Honestly, if you ingest material from CNN, MSNBC and the like, I can't really consider you all that intelligent. TigerGrowls, you can't fix this level of stupidity in these folks. They're hopeless. Best to ignore these imbeciles and move forward.

Doesn't mean we didn't hear about it due to our sources, it may just mean we heard they broke the law by blockading an abortion clinic and understood that breaking the law comes with consequences. This thread is about someone who did not break the law but was arrested anyway for her thought crimes.

But please tell us the sources we should use to be as well informed as you without using the letter X.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Ah but free speech is not. I see you are against the foundation of our country.

So I see you support terrorist who advocate murder rape violence against Americans

Hope that you will be happy with these people living next to your family and you in your community

Screaming in my face from a HAMAS supporter that he is going to rape murder cut my body up and burn the remains might be free speech to you

BUT FREE SPEECH HAS BOUNDARIES AND CONSEQUENCES

Free speech applies to government restricting it

If criminal conduct is involved there are consequences

Hope my explanation helps you reconcile the conundrum you are struggling with

 

[UrHuckleberry]

So I see you support terrorist who advocate murder rape violence against Americans

This is such a wild leap.

 

[TheValley91]

So I see you support terrorist who advocate murder rape violence against Americans

Hope that you will be happy with these people living next to your family and you in your community

Screaming in my face from a HAMAS supporter that he is going to rape murder cut my body up and burn the remains might be free speech to you

BUT FREE SPEECH HAS BOUNDARIES AND CONSEQUENCES

Free speech applies to government restricting it

If criminal conduct is involved there are consequences

Hope my explanation helps you reconcile the conundrum you are struggling with

You are spiraling. Deep breath.

Now show me the law she broke.

 

[uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu]

So I see you support terrorist who advocate murder rape violence against Americans

Hope that you will be happy with these people living next to your family and you in your community

Screaming in my face from a HAMAS supporter that he is going to rape murder cut my body up and burn the remains might be free speech to you

BUT FREE SPEECH HAS BOUNDARIES AND CONSEQUENCES

Free speech applies to government restricting it

If criminal conduct is involved there are consequences

Hope my explanation helps you reconcile the conundrum you are struggling with

Ofc it has limits. Those limits should be the same for everyone.

What did this girl say that wasn’t protected speech? If it’s about vandalism, it’s a criminal matter in which she’s presumed innocent like anyone else. I don’t even agree with her op-ed, but what I’m not going to do is crucify everyone who takes strong issue with our support of another flipping country. You’re at a point where you’re conflating somebody threatening to cut your head off with somebody saying we should divest from country X?

Why not come clean and say you don’t want limited government, you want a strong government that only caters to your beliefs?