So knowing that if hate-filled bastards gain power they will ignore restrictions, wouldn’t it have made sense to limit their ability to spread their hate filled message and gain support, rather than making it as easy as possible for them to gain power?

The whole “Um actually those protesters weren’t arrested for their speech, they were arrested because of where they stood” stuff is darkly hilarious.

As if the issue is what reason the cops write down as they stamp on your neck, as opposed to the fact they’re stamping on it.

And yet the government seems to be doing it more and more often, rather than these outcomes having any deterrent effect whatsoever, no?

I was responding to

“Not whether private property owners violate 1A when they refuse to permit protests on their property.”

I thought that was obvious. In hindsight I should have been clearer instead of treating this like a good faith discussion.

Okay so knowing that restrictions won’t bind bad actors, shouldn’t we as a result try to adopt policies that lessen the chances of such bad actors gaining power in the first place?

It might be stretching subsequent restrictions/holdings by more conservative courts, but I would argue Pruneyard absolutely did hold that California state law could (and did) broadly allow for protest in public gathering areas of private property.

“Damned evil government allowing…”

That line doesn’t make it clear to you that it’s referring specifically to that state and not the constitution?

I can’t tell if you’re wilfully misinterpreting what I say or if there’s a genuine communication issue here.

I’m not sure the existing “restrictions” are actually restricting this government.

From where I sit the trade was for restrictions that would only bind (relatively) well-meaning governments in exchange for increasing the chance of a hate-filled government that would ignore them.

Pruneyard had nothing to do with 1A. It was about California’s own freedom of speech laws. Nowhere did I ever say it impacted on nationwide freedom of speech laws.

Did I typo that somewhere or something?

I think making that restriction a long time ago would have led to better outcomes today.

I don’t think making that restriction today would lead to better outcomes today.

I don’t know that it would make a difference to outcomes tomorrow, since the government of today is basically unconstrained now.

Have those remedies been successful in reducing civil rights infractions over time?

This is an earnest question btw because I know how often things are reported can distort reality.

So are the authorities violating people’s civil rights less often these days? Because it *seems* worse than ever.

I think some of the same flaws have actually been caused by tolerating the spread of fascism and racism under the guise of freedom of speech.

The reality is that people with the “wrong” opinions in the U.S. are punished by agents of the state today just as much or more than elsewhere.

It turns out that protecting hate speech did not create the conditions to protect other kinds of speech; instead, it protected hate and allowed hate movements to take over all the institutions of that might have defended the rest of us.

in a typical display of bias, Rhiannon refuses to list the literally dozens of countries that Israel has NOT bombed this week

What use is having a right on a bit of paper when the government can and does violate that right at will and without consequence?

The only thing that matters is what happens in reality.

In reality, the mass-arrest of protesters happens in the U.S. as well. Usually with more gassing & violence.

Sure, and if they murdered someone I could even have them arrested!

Right. None of that means they also often don’t have legal recourse.

The fact people sometimes do and sometimes don’t depending on the label on the boot on their neck isn’t a plus point of the system from where I sit.

Accidentally triggered the “America is a free speech paradise!” Crowd today. Whoops.

I’m aware of that. Which is why I specified “in California”.

Generally explaining something helps with understanding no?

So to be clear, there are in fact headlines about the mass arrest of peaceful protesters, those protesters often have zero legal recourse, and it’s due to the laws passed by the government.

Almost like the entire concept of US “free speech” is an illusion, just like in every other country.

So if I owned a mall in California and wanted to kick peaceful non-disruptive protesters out of the mall I own, I could do that?

Just want to make sure I’m fully understanding the law here.

I see.

Hey, could you describe the holding in Pruneyard v. Robins for me really quick? Just in your own words.

“That, again, took place on private property” Are you claiming protesters in California don’t have the right to protest on private property which is open to the public?

/2...spending the time, and the mental energy, and one's own credibility to present those distinctions requires a leap of faith, a suspension of disbelief: it requires asserting that it's plausible that those rule-based distinctions are the actual reason for the difference.

I decline.

Hey out of curiosity, how do you square cops arresting hundreds of peaceful protesters at UCLA with the Pruneyard ruling?

Surely the cops didn’t just violate people’s free speech rights consequence free. Not in America! 🫢

Pruneyard v Robins must make you so mad in that case. Damned evil government allowing protests on private property!

After all private property is still private property. Right?

You’re right, the mass arrest of peaceful protesters is actually a good thing, my bad.

Clearly the mistake the Brits made was not coming up with the right excuse. Sorry, I mean reason. Obviously.

I think “we’re not arresting you for what you say, we’re just arresting you for standing there saying it.” Is a bit of a distinction without a difference.

Also seems wild to brag about how well US policies worked out given, you know, *points at government & supreme court*