What does Memphis do about this?

[59 Dano]

Your wife says you're not sure what to do with her "hat". I'm not surprised. I know you're a man of God, so what you and Thunder do isn't as He intended. It's OK, though...not judging. Maybe you can figure it out.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your gibberish.

 

[59 Dano]

Fine. But our FedEx hero couldn't have known that, or almost certainly didn't know that, so he was simply depriving them of their rights to free speech.

See, it's easy when someone explains it to you.

It's a beautiful thing when a man steps up and takes the initiative to do what's right, isn't it?

 

[PT Car Washer]

It's a beautiful thing when a man steps up and takes the initiative to do what's right, isn't it?

And give the protest national exposure instead of a paragraph in the local newspaper.

 

[59 Dano]

And give the protest national exposure instead of a paragraph in the local newspaper.

And?

 

[Schweddy]

It's a beautiful thing when a man steps up and takes the initiative to do what's right, isn't it?

If you managed with that mentality, fedex and bc would be a better place.

 

[PT Car Washer]

And?

Do you have a point?

 

[59 Dano]

Do you have a point?

Who cares how much exposure the protest gets?

 

[PT Car Washer]

Who cares how much exposure the protest gets?

I believe that would be the idea of a protest. To get your view point across to as many people as you can. The same as a terrorist act. Shock as many people as you can to publicize your grievance. The larger the shock, the more the exposure.

 

[bacha29]

I believe that would be the idea of a protest. To get your view point across to as many people as you can. The same as a terrorist act. Shock as many people as you can to publicize your grievance. The larger the shock, the more the exposure.

Exactly. They were not trying to protest or make a specific political point. They were trying to antagonize the political hard right and that stupid kid bit on it. X now has to be prepared for an avalanche of civil rights lawsuits. How much better it would have been if that dumb kid had either called the matter into city hall or better yet ignored them all together

 

[OutOfTheKnow]

You liberals just don't get it. The protection provided by the Constitution is against GOVERNMENT intervention. It does NOT provide against private citizens expressing their beliefs in response.

Liberal? Are you kidding? You obviously can read but cannot extrapolate the meaning of the words put together which you have read.

 

[rod]

My hats off to FedEx for standing behind their driver who rescued the burning flag. I seriously doubly UPS would have if it was a UPS driver

 

[bacha29]

My hats off to FedEx for standing behind their driver who rescued the burning flag. I seriously doubly UPS would have if it was a UPS driver

Let's wait and and see what's X does in regard to the driver if it turns out that's a named co-defendant in a multi million dollar civil rights law suit. This wasn't that kid's fight.......But he made it his.

 

[fedx]

So as long as somebody is on my own property, they have no constitutional rights? OK. Stupid has reached a new depth.

I wouldn't exactly call you stupid. Dumb maybe, but not stupid. So you think people can come on to your private property and hold a protest or rally? Okay, give out your address and we'll have a Trump rally at your home (which I know you won't support) and when you call the cops to break it up, we'll show your statement that you don't agree with your private property rights and we'll continue with the Trump rally. What's your address?

 

[bbsam]

I wouldn't exactly call you stupid. Dumb maybe, but not stupid. So you think people can come on to your private property and hold a protest or rally? Okay, give out your address and we'll have a Trump rally at your home (which I know you won't support) and when you call the cops to break it up, we'll show your statement that you don't agree with your private property rights and we'll continue with the Trump rally. What's your address?

You don't get it at all. Constitutional rights and.private property rights are not in conflict with each other.

Assaulting others is not "Free speech " no matter what the motivation.

 

[fedx]

Remember that in the SOUTH when states wouldn't go after whites' who violated blacks' rights, the Federal government had to prosecute for violating their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

So for someone to say "those are just state property rights etc., they are missing the bigger picture.

You seem very angry. All you use in your comparisons are about whites mistreating blacks or how they're KKK cross burners. There are racist people in all races. Just look at Chicago last month where 4 blacks kidnapped and tortured a retarded white kid just because he was white. Oh and the cops didn't charge them for violating his Constitutional rights either. They charged them for violating state statutes. Anyway, there are good and bad people in all races.

 

[fedx]

You don't get it at all. Constitutional rights and.private property rights are not in conflict with each other.

Assaulting others is not "Free speech " no matter what the motivation.

I guess I don't get it. At least your examples. You say you can't chain up the door of a church and I say you can't do that with any business, not just a church. You say you can't chain up kkk guy to a burning cross and I say you can't chain up someone to a tree either. Your examples have nothing to do with free speech or religion. They are state laws that prevent people from misbehaving. Private property rights do trump many constitutional rights. I can't go burn a flag in your yard if you don't want me to. I can't build a church on your property if you don't want me to. I can't target practice with a gun on your property if you don't want me to. I'm exercising my constitutional rights, but I can't do it anywhere I want. Private property right supersede it. So please tell me what I'm missing?

 

[bbsam]

I guess I don't get it. At least your examples. You say you can't chain up the door of a church and I say you can't do that with any business, not just a church. You say you can't chain up kkk guy to a burning cross and I say you can't chain up someone to a tree either. Your examples have nothing to do with free speech or religion. They are state laws that prevent people from misbehaving. Private property rights do trump many constitutional rights. I can't go burn a flag in your yard if you don't want me to. I can't build a church on your property if you don't want me to. I can't target practice with a gun on your property if you don't want me to. I'm exercising my constitutional rights, but I can't do it anywhere I want. Private property right supersede it. So please tell me what I'm missing?

You are missing that we are in agreement to a considerable degree. In all of my examples I would be in the wrong on those private properties. But I would be just as wrong and guilty on public properties. Therefore constitutional and property law are in agreement.

Furthermore (and I can't say this clearly enough apparently) forcibly taking somebody's property is theft and possibly assault as well. There is no justification for it. Theft and assault are not free speech.

 

[OutOfTheKnow]

I guess I don't get it. At least your examples. You say you can't chain up the door of a church and I say you can't do that with any business, not just a church. You say you can't chain up kkk guy to a burning cross and I say you can't chain up someone to a tree either. Your examples have nothing to do with free speech or religion. They are state laws that prevent people from misbehaving. Private property rights do trump many constitutional rights. I can't go burn a flag in your yard if you don't want me to. I can't build a church on your property if you don't want me to. I can't target practice with a gun on your property if you don't want me to. I'm exercising my constitutional rights, but I can't do it anywhere I want. Private property right supersede it. So please tell me what I'm missing?

Why are

You are missing that we are in agreement to a considerable degree. In all of my examples I would be in the wrong on those private properties. But I would be just as wrong and guilty on public properties. Therefore constitutional and property law are in agreement.

Furthermore (and I can't say this clearly enough apparently) forcibly taking somebody's property is theft and possibly assault as well. There is no justification for it. Theft and assault are not free speech.

Is it kidnapping to rescue a child being assaulted by a parent? SCOTUS declared the physical act of burning a symbol which is sacred to the majority of this Nation's citizens as being protected by the Constitution's 1st amendment. Regarding theft, there are instances when the American People have granted certain men the authority to seize property. The Amercan People are the ultimate authority in this nation. They viewed the evidence and ultimately ruled in favor of Matt food his actions.

 

[bacha29]

Why are

Is it kidnapping to rescue a child being assaulted by a parent? SCOTUS declared the physical act of burning a symbol which is sacred to the majority of this Nation's citizens as being protected by the Constitution's 1st amendment. Regarding theft, there are instances when the American People have granted certain men the authority to seize property. The Amercan People are the ultimate authority in this nation. They viewed the evidence and ultimately ruled in favor of Matt food his actions.

Matt acquittal in the Court of Public Opinion means absolutely nothing in the eyes of a civil rights attorney. Again, this wasn't Matt's fight but he made it his fight and he did so without first thinking about the consequences.

 

[bbsam]

Why are

Is it kidnapping to rescue a child being assaulted by a parent? SCOTUS declared the physical act of burning a symbol which is sacred to the majority of this Nation's citizens as being protected by the Constitution's 1st amendment. Regarding theft, there are instances when the American People have granted certain men the authority to seize property. The Amercan People are the ultimate authority in this nation. They viewed the evidence and ultimately ruled in favor of Matt food his actions.

Public opinion swings wildly. The "American People" do not represent a court and in fact are often quite wrong.