I've seen multiple posts of a video that appears to show a man being arrested for reading from the Bible in a public space during a pride event. If this is actually what happened, this seems to be a direct violation of his 1st amendment right to free speech, at a very minimum.
Tuesday, June 6, 2023
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I just saw an article referencing that, but I haven't read it. I'm not at all surprised such a thing might have happened, given the irrational support of "progressives" for perversion these days.
Art,
I've seen it enough, and it sounds like something that is entirely possible, but I'm not 100% convinced we have the whole story yet. But given the fact that we've seen the person who shot a pro life peacefully "protesting" get off virtually scott free, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if this is what it looks like. What'll be interesting is if they actually get prosecuted for this.
We've certainly seen variations on this theme a number of times, including seemingly worse examples in the UK. It's the spreading cancer of leftism in western culture which is metastasizing wherever "progressives" are in control.
I agree that we see enough similar behavior that it just hits like it's real.
A police officer speaking to Newsweek confirmed the same, saying Atkins was not charged for reading the Bible verses.
"He was not arrested for reading a bible verse. He was arrested for being disorderly. His volume was at a level that he was heckling a preplanned and permitted event. He was given an area he was allowed to protest in and was asked to keep the volume at a level that was not problematic or that was inciting public inconvenience," said the officer.
https://www.wionews.com/world/us-man-arrested-for-disorderly-conduct-after-reciting-bible-verses-at-pride-event-601685
You know, I guess, that progressive and moderate protestors have been arrested and even shot at with rubber bullets for the same failure to comply with police orders at various protests?
The difference being, in those protests, we were peacefully protesting against a war or an invasion or against police violence (only to be met by police violence). And in this case, the guy was protesting and giving grief to people simply being people. Harassing them for the "sin" of being or siding with LGBTQ people.
Apples and rotten oranges.
But the next time peaceful liberal protesters are arrested for failing to comply with police orders while simply protesting in a public place, I'm sure I'll see you boys stand with the protesters and against the police, is that right?
Ha! Sometimes, hypocrisy shows itself especially clearly.
And it was the POLICE who arrested this guy, no indication that it was "liberals" or "the gays" who arrested him. You suggesting the liberals done invaded our police forces, as well? In Pennsylvania??
It goes without saying that the "POLICE" arrested this guy, and yes I have no problem with the concept that the left controls local governments.
How interesting that you believe that this one single guy should have been arrested for reading the Bible too loudly, while remaining silent on the protesters who threatened that lives of SCOTUS justices, police officers in MPLS, attacked LOEs with deadly weapons in MPLS, took over a section of Seattle, burned and looted multiple US cities. I've got it. The fact remains that there is a reasonable case that his first amendment rights were violated, and you seem perfectly content to support the police in doing so.
"You know, I guess, that progressive and moderate protestors have been arrested and even shot at with rubber bullets for the same failure to comply with police orders at various protests?"
Yes, I do know that a small % of the peaceful protesters that destroyed large portions of MPLS did get arrested. We've also seen plenty of "peaceful protesters" get away with all sorts of mayhem.
"The difference being, in those protests, we were peacefully protesting against a war or an invasion or against police violence (only to be met by police violence). And in this case, the guy was protesting and giving grief to people simply being people. Harassing them for the "sin" of being or siding with LGBTQ people."
1. I'm sure the shelter full of mothers and children that was almost burned down during the MPLS riots will be glad to hear this news.
2. It's amusing how you think that you get to decide what protesters are protected by the 1st amendment, and which one's aren't. 1 guy reading scripture a little too loudly must be arrested, thousands rioting, burning, and looting, are merely "peaceful protesters".
"But the next time peaceful liberal protesters are arrested for failing to comply with police orders while simply protesting in a public place, I'm sure I'll see you boys stand with the protesters and against the police, is that right?"
What an idiotic bit of hypocritical bullshit. These situations are clearly judged individually, and to demand that we take a position now on something that hasn't happened, is simply absurd. Hell, you can't even acknowledge that this guy was a peaceful protester. Or at least more peaceful than what we lived through up here.
"Ha! Sometimes, hypocrisy shows itself especially clearly."
1. Yes it does. Just look in a mirror.
2. If you actually took the time to read what we wrote, you would have seen that we were both responding to what was being reported, while maintaining some healthy skepticism until we got more information.
3. It's hilarious how in this one case you unhesitatingly believe anything the police say and simply parrot their words as if they were 100% True. Too bad you don't give all the police the same benefit of the doubt.
Dan stops at info which seems to align with his perversions. The police will most always respond and report their side of the story. Like the initial report, this only gets us a bit closer to the truth of the matter. Note how the families of punks shot while resisting arrest, and their supporters and enablers, don't accept the typical police report of those events. Here, Dan's willing to take the word of the cops as the complete and absolutely 100% accurate version of this protester's arrest.
I would also insist that in many cases, areas "allowed" for protesting are selected for their inhibiting effect. In some cases, opposing sides will be restricted to opposite sides of the street, which allows for each to hear the other if either chooses to listen. This is fine, and if one crosses over, such a person is legitimately suspected of seeking to cause a disturbance.
So what are the details with regard restrictions on this protester? And how is this worse than those lefty Antifa creeps attacking parents seeking to address a school board/administration about their indoctrination of students?
In Dan's fevered defense of godless perversions, a single Christian yelling God's Truth at "LGBT" reprobates celebrating "pride" in perversion is somehow harmful, threatening and disruptive. Poor babies.
Art,
Obviously the selective manner in which the APL accepts what the police say is problematic ato best. I also agree that counter protesters are sometimes limited to spaces which inhibit their ability to fully engage. It's interesting that in this case one of the reasons for the arrest was that people were being annoyed, or inconvenienced. Yet Dan has supported protesters blocking freeways as a means to make their point. It seems as though he is advocating for the freedom for certain protesters to be able to inconvenience the public, while preventing others from doing so.
It's all about the double standard.
Post a Comment