Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— First Amendment to the United States Constitution

We’ve seen and heard arguments from those who interpret the First Amendment to suit their immediate desires but I don’t look between the lines as there’s never anything there.

The First Amendment allows for freedom of speech. I’ve always disagreed with the conditions some readily quote like shouting fire in a crowded theater. You can do it. You just have to be ready to accept the consequences, which is obviously problematic to those who want limited responsibility for those actions.

Whether it be on a street, highway, or college campus, a growing segment of our population believes they not only have the right to say what they want and because of where they’ve strategically decided to say it, but they also have the right to be heard.

I don’t see that right in any of our Constitutional amendments.

When the Tea Party held their many events across the United States, they first applied for and obtained a permit. They held their event in a static place so people had the choice to attend and hear speakers exercising their First Amendment right of speech. Police were in attendance due to the size of the gatherings, and almost all were relaxed as those in attendance were appreciative of them and their service. Permits for Tea Party events appear to have been issued with relative ease as the reputation was the areas used were normally left cleaner than when the group first arrived. Attendees did not routinely vandalize or destroy surrounding public, private property and businesses.

Speakers at Tea Party events enjoyed the right to speak and did not force anyone to hear their words.

For the last decade or so, left wing groups seldom acquire permits for their “events”, and I use that term loosely.

They exploit any opportunity to take to the streets, disrupt the free flow of traffic on our highways because it’s loosely illegal.

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants … of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State.
— Articles of Confederation, Article 4

The Founders thought our right to freedom of movement so obvious, they didn’t bother adding it to the Constitution. The informal education system was better then than today’s taxpayer-funded abomination so the obvious didn’t require dumbing down. We can be detained and even arrested for walking in the middle of the road but if it’s a “protest” and it’s “free speech”, you get some leeway?

The left considers their modern mode of free speech via disruption as the “right of the people to peaceably assemble”. They obviously have no permit to block traffic and yet get in the faces of captive motorists and demand they listen to their message. Maybe that’s “mostly peaceably”.

The same now can be said as to their activities on college campuses. They take over large areas, decide who can and cannot be admitted to facilities, and force all in the area to listen to what they have to say. Their areas are routinely left in a more disheveled condition than when originally occupied, surrounding buildings and statues are vandalized and sometimes local areas experience disruptions in commerce, if not also damage to property. Let’s not leave out violence than can lead to injury and/or death.

And when it all gets ugly and fingers are pointed, we’re all told it’s a free speech issue.

It is not.

In this case, all of these protesters can call for the divestment from Israel, issue death threats, hurl racial slurs at a black congressman, and more. Those involved believe that their abhorrent words are justified and they should be able to say them. I agree as we should know what’s in their little heads.

But what really pisses them off is that our ability to ignore nullifies their speech. In this case, we can blow their words off as the sophistry of the young, uninformed and duped. If they don’t even know what they’re protesting, there’s no reason to succumb to demands. That would be dumb.

Until there’s a Constitutional Amendment forcing The People to have to hear the words of others (which would be kind of interesting to enforce), the children will have to scream until they’re hoarse.

Then again they’d go full Clockwork Orange on their opponents if they could force us to see and hear them at their worse.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned American Olympic athletes not to do or say anything that may enrage their “ruthless” Communist China hosts.

While obviously, a good suggestion, protesting thus “incurring the anger” of a government she leads is punishable, albeit not to the same level of the ChiComms… yet.

In the United States, it all depends on who is doing the protesting.

Nancy Pelosi had no problem with protests against an opposition president, with even one protester talking about blowing up the White House. Nancy Pelosi and Democrats had no problem with Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters who illegally blocked traffic on public streets and highways, verbally and physically assaulted motorists, vandalized public and private property, verbally and physically assaulted law enforcement, burned police stations, and injured and killed Americans on the street. Most of them were not detained and incarcerated, and many have had their release assisted by nonprofits and even elected politicians. Nancy Pelosi has no problem while taxpayer-funded intelligence agencies violate the law and monitor the activities of Americans without cause or warrant every day.

Conversely, Nancy Pelosi has no problem with those who were caught up in the January 6 mayhem and have been jailed since in Third World (Washington, D.C.) conditions, despite not being formally charged with a crime. Conversely, Nancy Pelosi has no problem with parents being surveilled and arrested for protesting local school boards run by liberal Democrats. Conversely, Nancy Pelosi has no problem with state prosecutors persecuting a former President of the United States, whose free speech was repeatedly violated by Big Tech platforms.

Nancy Pelosi can spare us the righteous indignation of warning against Americans exercising free speech in a nation that doesn’t recognize it.

Thanks to people like her, it’s only a little better here.

BTW — If an Olympic athlete does cross the line, there’s no President Trump who’ll personally secure their prompt release. He or she will be at the mercy of Joe Biden who doesn’t leave Americans behind, right?

Over the years, we’ve seen many displays of what could be considered obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, indecent language, suggestions or proposals of an obscene nature, and threats of illegal or immoral acts. Whether those displays originate online or at public protests, the left is the most egregious of offenders, they’re proud of it and consider such First Amendment-protected free speech.

When a bully gets a taste of his or her own medicine, that bully usually backs down. That is unless we’re talking about an aggressive Democrat majority in Virginia who now deams offensive speech issued towards them something that should be treated as an act of  criminality.

Included in House Bill No. 1627, offered January 16, 2020 by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne (D-Richmond)….

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
— § 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty

Public officials, candidates, government employees can and have called taxpaying constituents everything from stupid, uninformed, racists, haters, fascists, religious bigots, homophobes and worse, but the thought of someone calling them something mean could soon become a criminal offense punishable by up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.

Virginia Democrats appear to believe the citizenry must show them due reverence and respect they believe they (as “public servants”) are due, and we may soon have our First Amendment right of free speech criminalized when it comes time for any kind of Constitutionally protected dissent. And let’s be real, while we all have our crazies, liberals are far and away more rude, obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, publicly display indecent language, making suggestions or proposals of an obscene nature (i.e. “fuck yourself”) than anything you’ll see or hear at a conservative and/or Republican gathering.

And as is the ongoing pattern, overreaching Democrats will high five themselves when H.B. 1627 passes but seeing how politics IS cyclical, there will be a Republican majority in Virginia again and these same Democrats will be whining how their inability to hurl an insult is a violation of their freedom of speech.

Well, until Democrats demand future Republicans repeal that law, fuck you.