On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:


As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.


At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".



The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.


As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:


As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.


At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".



The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.


As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.


Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

LOL Well, some are some aren't I guess.

wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:26:23 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.

At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".


The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.

As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.
They don't have such a right. That's a threat.

Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.
LOL Well, some are some aren't I guess.

Less the "Wild One" and more like the "Wild Hogs".

I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is
determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault.


Connecticut and Georgia?

Snotty Ingersoll* at several points threatened to show up here and teach
me a lesson, and so did the Loogy moron.

* It is embarrassing to me that Ingersoll lives in the state of my
birth. I no longer can claim that Connecticut Yankees are smarter than
the average bear since, with Ingersoll posting here, that obviously is
not true.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:26:23 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:


As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.


At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".



The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.


As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.


Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

LOL Well, some are some aren't I guess.

Less the "Wild One" and more like the "Wild Hogs".

I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is
determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault.

It depends a lot on the presiding authority. Different places define
them differently. Basically, it's when they're used to incite violence
or express hatred by the person to whom they're directed, but that's
very broad.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:06:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:13:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote:



I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is
determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault.

It depends a lot on the presiding authority. Different places define
them differently. Basically, it's when they're used to incite violence
or express hatred by the person to whom they're directed, but that's
very broad.


I think standing next to a funeral telling some family that their son
died because god killed him for supporting fags is "inciting
violence".

I agree, but the Supreme's disagreed. It was one of the few times that
I actually agreed with Alito.

They decided that it was a public statement vs. one to specific
person.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:13:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote:



I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is
determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault.

It depends a lot on the presiding authority. Different places define
them differently. Basically, it's when they're used to incite violence
or express hatred by the person to whom they're directed, but that's
very broad.


I think standing next to a funeral telling some family that their son
died because god killed him for supporting fags is "inciting
violence".

A few thugs in masks should pop out of a crowd and give a few of them
hideous beat downs and disappear back into the crowd.. A couple
incidents like that and the cowards would go find something else to do
to try to impress each other... That is when they got out of the
hospital.

On Mar 20, 9:50*am, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.

At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater"..

The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.

As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.

Duh *... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

Greg, I'd think it would be interesting if a West-burrow member tried
to break their line, though.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

Most of the bikers around here are on social security.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

Most of the bikers around here are on social security.

You can't tough when after you put the kick stand down you grab your
walker off the back of your bike.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:47:04 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

Most of the bikers around here are on social security.

If you get up there on the dirt roads in North Ft Myers you can find
the real deal. It is still nothing like the PG county Md bikers.
You have the guys who are really Pagans, the guys who hang around the
Pagans and the guys who know those guys. When I was flipping Harleys I
knew a few of the latter. They are the people who know the most about
Harleys and I had some grudging respect because I had a knack for
transmissions and I could get a Bendix carb working.

We had a nice little restaurant new where I grew up that was taken over
by the Pagans, it slowly turned into a titty bar but nobody went to it
except the Pagans and some idiot young soldiers from Ft Belvior. Then
there was the False Alarm down in Woodbridge