“Little in the way of expression is outlawed
under the United States Constitution,
but an act which incites a lawful forceful response
is unlikely to pass as expressive speech.”
Justice Frances A. McIntyre
Occupy Boston et al vs. City of Boston et al
"So, that which the police suppress violently
is unlikely to be protected by the First Amendment?
What should the electorate expect
from leadership dependent on the status quo?
Can law and morality
unreasonably rationalize the status quo?
...that Citizens United says that corporations
can express free speech with money,
and McIntyre says that actual humans can't express free speech
...no matter how the thuggish-by-proxy board members
...might clutch their pearls, pepper spray, batons, guns,
and drone controllers.
Is stability a legitimate reason to repress justified dissent?
However, the worst aspect -- the most inhumane,
immoral, and inflammatory aspect -- of McIntyre's decision
is that it's an enabling act for police violence.
Have the educated underemployed instigated most rebellions?
Think about it.
Is dissent the highest form of patriotism?
If a "lawful"* and "forceful" response
means that whatever is forcefully responded to
is "unlikely" to be free speech,
then aren't departments that don't want to get sued
most likely to arm themselves with boilerplate from legal,
and then break as many skulls as they can, as forcefully as they can?"
When the rich plunder the poor of his rights,
it becomes an example for the poor
to plunder the rich of his property,
for the rights of the one are as much property to him
as wealth is property to the other,
and the little all is as dear as the much.
It is only by setting out on just principles
that men are trained to be just to each other;
and it will always be found,
that when the rich protect the rights of the poor,
the poor will protect the property of the rich.
But the guarantee, to be effectual,
must be parliamentarily reciprocal.