- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: There is no Constitutional Right in the United States to protest!
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:54 pm to TBoy
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:54 pm to TBoy
quote:
What if you are standing there and federal agents move in on you and start beating you? Have you done anything wrong?
Of course you have… according to the Administration you should have been at home admiring what Trump is doing in Venezuela, Greenland, etc… not outside flaunting your citizenship and rights in public
0
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:59 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Infringing on other's rights to freedom of movement is wrong.
See this problem… earlier in the thread you argued that the J6 protestors did nothing wrong due to I guess the setting of where the protest took place… yet they chased a police officer up the stairs … we’re they not infringing on his freedom of movement???…
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:59 pm to 11Eleven
That’s some of the dumbest shite I’ve ever read. When people destroy property or interfere with the rights of others, they can be and have been arrested. However, protesters can yell and shout whatever they want. They can parade downtown without creating a hazard…
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:03 pm to lepdagod
quote:
See this problem… earlier in the thread you argued that the J6 protestors did nothing wrong due to I guess the setting of where the protest took place… yet they chased a police officer up the stairs … we’re they not infringing on his freedom of movement???…
I didn't defend all people at the J6 incident... I noted the ones that were let in and literally walked along the roped paths. Not everyone at J6 were good actors. I do believe it's been confirmed there were agitators there.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:05 pm to lepdagod
quote:
No in theory… when applied practically yes… it’s the same argument with ICE… that’s why I use the word “inconvenience”… does ICE have the right to inconvenience a American citizen by asking him/her to prove citizenship… if argued in theory the answer is no of course… but practically how can this be avoided
Apples and oranges.
Protesting is excercising a right
What ICE is doing is excercising their authority.
Whether I or you agree, it is authority given to them by the government we all agreed upon.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:05 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
I didn't defend all people at the J6 incident.
You defended the protest
quote:
. Not everyone at J6 were good actors. I do believe it's been confirmed there were agitators there.
This is true of every protest, no???
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:07 pm to lepdagod
quote:
You defended the protest
They were AT the government petitioning THE government... they were allowed in BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Different set of circumstances entirely.
What government office inhabits a Hilton hotel? A Target? A freeway?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:19 pm to Penrod
quote:
The First Amendment does not give one the right to shout obscenities.
Yes it does.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:23 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Apples and oranges.
Protesting is excercising a right
What Agency X is doing is excercising their authority
I removed ICE because I don't want this to be about any specific incident.
You have this backward.
Rights trump authorities. If an agency action violates a right, that agency did not have the authority.
Now, reasonable people can differ about what is and isn't a right, but the core concept is that rights are constitutional and supersede both laws and executive actions.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:27 pm to BigJim
quote:
Rights trump authorities. If an agency action violates a right, that agency did not have the authority.
This is the basis of the Constitution… the Administration interpretation is where authority can be applied rights have no relevancy
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:57 pm to BigJim
quote:
Rights trump authorities. If an agency action violates a right, that agency did not have the authority.
I give you credit, you understand it.
The "rights" in the Constitution are written in the inverse, as limitations on government power, not as expressing rights of the people. For example, the operative language in the First Amendment is:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting ... or prohibiting ... or abridging ...
The language is a limitation on government power. The federal government does not have the authority to do what the Constitution says it does not have the authority to do.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:26 pm to Penrod
quote:Where the frick did you come up with that shite?
The First Amendment does not give one the right to shout obscenities.
The First Amendment absolutely protects profanity as speech unless it crosses into a narrow set of categories like true threats.
quote:Cohen vs CA (Harlan)
“One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric. But the First Amendment protects expressions that are profane, offensive, or disagreeable. We cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also suppressing ideas. … For in public discussion we must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. … The state may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make mere public profanity a criminal offense.”
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:38 pm to Penrod
quote:You're confusing enforcement with constitutionality.
Nope.
ETA: Go to any well run town, stand on main street, and start shouting obscenities and see what happens to you.
“A cop might stop you” isn't proof the speech isn’t protected. Cops stop people all the time for things that are ultimately protected, because in the moment they’re reacting to complaints, disorder, or an overly broad local ordinance. The First Amendment isn’t a forcefield that prevents police contact. It’s a legal constraint on what the government can ultimately punish once you're in court. The constitutional question isn’t dependent upon whether or not you got hassled by cops. It’s whether the government can punish the content of your speech.
Profanity is content. The First Amendment generally protects content, even when it’s crude or hateful. What cities can regulate is the manner: time, location, blocking sidewalks, refusing to disperse, targeted harassment, threats, or behavior that actually impedes others. If you’re screaming at 2 a.m. outside someone’s window, you can get cited because of noise or harassment. If you’re chanting on a public street, you’re in core protected speech territory, even if it’s ugly.
Police action is not the test and “well-run town” is not a legal standard.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:47 pm to Penrod
quote:NYC Code 10-179 isn’t the Constitution. Municipal codes don’t define the limits of the First Amendment.
You disagree?
quote:
Yes, shouting obscenities in public in NYC can be illegal under NYC Code Section 10-179 regarding disorderly behavior, which prohibits using abusive/obscene language or making unreasonable noise in public.
Disorderly conduct statutes survive only insofar as they regulate conduct, not content. “Unreasonable noise,” blocking passage, refusing lawful orders, targeted harassment, or time/place/manner violations can be enforced. What they cannot do is punish speech simply because it’s abusive or obscene in the colloquial sense. Courts have routinely narrowed or invalidated these laws when cities try to use them as profanity bans.
This is exactly why “go try it and see what happens” isn’t a legal argument. Governments violate the First Amendment all the time at street level. The test is what survives judicial review afterward.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:48 pm to VOR
quote:
However, protesters can yell and shout whatever they want. They can parade downtown without creating a hazard…
Maybe check into court rulings. The 9-0 SCOTUS ruling where the minority even wrote the decision.
Might want to check out that ruling by the MN judge. January 16, 2026, ruling by a Minnesota federal judge clarified that while people have a right to gather and "witness" (film) ICE agents, that right ends the moment their physical presence "obstructs or interferes" with the agents' duties. The ruling explicitly states that if a person "gets in the face" of an agent or uses their body to block an agent’s path, they are no longer protected by the First Amendment right to assemble.
The "Right to Peaceably Assemble" is not a "Right to Intervene."
Right to Peaceably Assemble: Protects your right to gather as a group in public spaces.
The First Amendment only protects assemblies that are "peaceable." Courts have consistently ruled against people doing anything other than that.
Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, speech that by its very utterance "inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace" is not protected.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 115, threatening a federal agent with the intent to "intimidate or interfere" with their duties is a felony.
Intimidation without Contact: Under 18 U.S.C. § 111, it is a crime to "forcibly... intimidate or interfere" with an officer.
Courts have recently interpreted "forcible" to include getting close enough to an agent's face that your yelling or physical presence creates a "menacing environment" that prevents them from doing their job.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:06 pm to BigJim
quote:
Rights trump authorities. If an agency action violates a right, that agency did not have the authority.
Now, reasonable people can differ about what is and isn't a right, but the core concept is that rights are constitutional and supersede both laws and executive actions.
Didn't have it backwards at all.
Rights = natural law. Based on property ownership. What is mine is mine and no one can damage it. My body is mine and I may protect it. The 1st 10 Amendments were written to acknowledge that.
Authority = powers we grant state bodies so that they may do their job. Detainment is one of those authorities. Detainment is a hinderance, but it does not normally violate one's rights.
Without authority, there is no real law. Without law, we live in chaos. Without law, there is no recourse for abuses of rights.
Are all authorities given just authorities? I may not agree, but apparently the bulk of society wants them and I live in society so I must abide by within them.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:48 pm to 11Eleven
The right to "protest" has always been equated to "peacefully assemble". It has become blurred recently thanks to progressives who push the envelope. People have had no issue with those who go out with signs and yell. They have that right, but you cross the line when you obstruct, block access to public spaces or intimidate others minding their own God damn business. To make matters worse, it has become profession for some.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 7:00 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
NYC Code 10-179 isn’t the Constitution. Municipal codes don’t define the limits of the First Amendment.
Disorderly conduct statutes survive only insofar as they regulate conduct, not content. “Unreasonable noise,” blocking passage, refusing lawful orders, targeted harassment, or time/place/manner violations can be enforced. What they cannot do is punish speech simply because it’s abusive or obscene in the colloquial sense. Courts have routinely narrowed or invalidated these laws when cities try to use them as profanity bans.
So you think I was right or wrong when I wrote…
quote:?
Go to any well run town, stand on main street, and start shouting obscenities and see what happens to you.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 7:02 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
You're confusing enforcement with constitutionality.
I’m not confusing anything. I cited a statute that is not unconstitutional. We are discussing protestors who are yelling obscenities at police in a public space. That’s illegal, and the laws that make it illegal are not unconstitutional.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 7:04 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
Yes it does.
You are mistaken. Elsewhere in this thread I have cited laws that outlaw it. And the constitution does nothing to protect loud, obscene behavior in public spaces.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News