There really isn’t a rebuttal you’ll accept. Because you’re doing the logic-troll thing.
Okay, one more time: I don’t care if, in your opinion, she actually assaulted someone. I, as have others, disagree, due, as has been stated, to the inherent power-imbalance there. That’s not what I’m talking about.
My point is, a specific law has been deliberately misapplied in order to stifle dissent. There’s no such thing as ‘ideal law’. In fact, I’d go so far as to say there are some very stupid laws, which I think we should ignore, and campaign to have removed. Not, obviously, those applying to assault and/or violence. However, not only are there stupid laws (which we’re not discussing here), but also laws either stupidly, or maliciously applied (which we are discussing here). Everything has to deal with nuance, intent, and whether or not we should carry on doing something when it’s plain to see it’s bloody stupid and will be nothing but an expensive waste of time (viz. the other two similar cases I mentioned earlier). Especially the law. This is going to get thrown out of court, if it ever even gets there.
Either you are arguing the toss for fun, or you have such an authoritarian world-view that we simply think in ways that are so completely orthogonal to each other that we can’t even process what the other is getting at. Either way, I’m done.
