Gyroscopic Investing

I had dinner last night with a friend who serves as a superior court judge in a major metropolitan area. This city has had its share of violent demonstrations lately, most of which have involved the protest of free speech, among other things. According to this judge, there have been quite a few arrests, and the defendants are presently winding their way through the justice system. So I asked him, "How many of the attorneys appointed for these people (virtually none of them pay for their defense) are making First Amendment arguments? His answer, without any hesitation, was "All of them."

Simonjester wrote:so what is the free speech/1st amendment argument?)

It's the whole "expressive conduct" thing. That certain activities are inherently expressive in nature and therefore ought not to be treated differently than actual speech.

. . . that violence is a form of speech and should be allowed freely? that using violence to keep other people from speaking freely is a form of free speech? color me confused... ::

You got it. Amazingly, there are attorneys who will stand up and make this argument with a straight face. And when the judge points out the irony, they'll start yammering about Trump. Yes, really.

MangoMan wrote:Meh. Their definition of free speech is that it should only be allowed if you agree with what they think. They are all up in arms about so-called 'Nazis', yet this is exactly what the real Nazis did in the 1940's: stifle any opposition immediately, in a violent manner. It's the epitome of hypocrisy.

I hate the extreme right. I also hate the extreme left.

I have a great cartoon that illustrates that. If only photobucket would let me show it.

If I get a chance before my trip, I'll photograph it and upload it to imgur or something.