Iām pretty sure that it was just Dave Chappelle in costume.
and yes you raped mike hunt.
heard that as āand yes you raped my ****.ā
Mike Hunt is a dick
And now heās just been rewarded for his actions (and never punished for his crimes).
Let that be a lesson to you, Mr. Hunt! Oops.
That would be a hell of a sentence to act out in a game of charadesā¦
The US is crazy. So. Fucking. Crazy.
Christ, what an asshole.
And now heās just been rewarded for his actions (and never punished for his crimes).
I hope that is just sarcasm that doesnāt come through very well on the internet.
I appreciate this guy helping to keep a government in check from trampling the free speech rights we all have. The people who needed to be punished were the authoritarians who decided they didnāt like what a citizen had to say so they silenced him with their police force.
Keep up the good work Mr. Hunt!
you know what? I donāt believe free speech is the all and end all of societal values. Especially not free speech just for the sake of free speech. This man was being an ass. offensive and destructive. Maybe if he had something to say I would be a little more empathetic. I understand that free speech also means the right to be an idiot, but I donāt believe being an idiot should be free of consequences.
See that is the thing about free speech, it is easy to allow free speech when it is stuff you agree with or do not mind listening too, the hard part of free speech is allowing it and protecting it when it is offensive, annoying, or odious.
The big problem with the government drawing lines on what people can say is that today it might just be some pain in the ass, ignorant racist (which I am not saying Hunt is at all) and we all agree that is fine we donāt want to hear it, but tomorrow, with a different group in power they might decide that christian religious speech is offensive and should be banned, or talk about evolution and science.
As long as he is not endangering anyone there is no reason for a government power to use its police powers, powers of imprisonment and confiscatory powers to restrict what he is allowed to say in public.
Itās sarcasm mixed with cynicism.
The man attacked others and was never charged. Even in this instance, there was the possibility of charging him and the decision was to let it go. Instead of being grateful for the act of kindness and walking away, he turns around and sues them. As they say: good deeds never go unpunished.
The man attacked others and was never charged.
Who did he attack? This post is about the charges he faced for āviolating decorumā and other BS charges based on what he expressed through how he dressed and what he said in a public forum.
I do actually agree with you in theory. In fact, I believe the ACLU did its job when it argued that neo-Nazis had the right to march through Skokie (as disrespectful and cruel as that was).
But itās also true that limits can be put on peopleās free speech in certain circumstances. If there were written limits on what was considered acceptable attire in that circumstance, then they had the right to throw him out. They wouldnāt have had the right to stop him from demonstrating in front of the government building, however.
I donāt know if there was an official decorum code written up, however. Iām just arguing the general principle that it is possible to put restrictions on attire in certain circumstances. āNo shirt, no shoes, no serviceā springs to mind.
I quoted the relevant part in my post:
āand has reportedly violently attacked other vendors in the past.ā
I can also agree with what youāre saying. But at some point I feel like we have to cede to common sense. I just donāt agree that this manās free speech was being infringed, at least not to the point that he should be owed any compensation.
Somehow I missed that part. The article linked, although unclear, says he was sentenced to 1 year in jail, of which he will serve 80% of that time, so he was punished for that. In no way do I ever excuse violence in any form, period.
But that is a much difference case then the reason he got the $215k award.
As to rules of dress and/or no shoes, no shirt health regulations, that falls under the āhurting someone else clauseā as it is a health code issue. And private property with dress codes is much different than open government meetings for the public to voice their opinions and concerns. In a private establishment, they cannot imprison you or confiscate your assets if you violate their dress code, all they can do is ask you to leave.
But at some point I feel like we have to cede to common sense.
That is the whole point of this discussion: You feel it is common sense to not allow him to protest the government by wearing a gross, offensive outfit, or saying offensive words. But who decides what falls under common sense? And what happens when others get into power and decide that their common sense should prevail and dictate freedom of expression?
Remember, it cuts both ways. Just because the government cannot curb his free speech doesnāt mean private citizens arenāt free to do so. We can surround his shop and protest. We can use horrible words to refer to him. We can follow him around in public calling him whatever we choose. We just canāt try to use the law to limit his speech unless it presents an immediate threat to the safety of others.
