commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Original video? I want to cringe.
29
mattmun12's profile photoAshley S's profile photoMike Thompson's profile photosignnet2's profile photo
18 comments
 
+Haykira Just watched it. In her defense (not really actually, I still think she's over reacting and being a cunt) all she did was kick a sign, push the camera away when she didn't want to be recorded. Freedom of speech really, no reason to call the cops over that, and she didn't damage anything, in fact I would say that guy was over-reacting too and going against the law by unwillfully recording someone. She already gave the fuck up and started to walk away, and he called the cops. Being disruptive sure, nothing to warrant calling the cops.
 
+mattmun12
She was denying the anti abortion people their freedom of speech though, not expressing hers because she kicked in their sign, and you are allowed to record people in public its not unlawful but they are not allowed to make the video public with out bluring her face so she could probably sue since it got so popular for stress or w.e and the video being uploaded without her permission.
 
+Edmond Dantes So people are allowed to take pictures up random girls skirts in public? Kicking over a sign is hardly stopping their freedom of speech. Destroying the sign would be. She's just being a cunt. 
 
+mattmun12 whether its destroyed or just kicked over and damaged it doesn't matter she isn't allowed to do it, but they are retarded for campaigning against abortion anyway. They are clearly just christians, but she is also retarded for saying white male privilage a number of times when it doesn't make sense to the context she is in.
 
+mattmun12
I don't think freedom of speech includes kicking cameras and getting in people's faces in a threatening manner like she did.


...but I don't think calling the cops was useful either, and you were right about escalation.

still, not okay
 
+Ashley Buddy Never said it was OK, I said she was being a cunt. In a threatening manner? Freedom of speech. You're allowed to go up to someone and talk angrily at them. As long as she isn't actually 'threatening' them, as in making death threats or threatening violence. She didn't do that though.
 
+mattmun12 Its about whether the guy felt threatened though if someone with opposite ideals to me walked up screaming into my face then assuming violence my follow is a reasonable assumption when you don't know the anything about the person apart from the fact they are incredibly angry at you and already broke your sign.
 
+mattmun12

please consider what you are saying in a greater context for a moment. if people are allowed to get in other people's personal space and scream and even destroy their property, imagine a scenario like this:

black panther and the kkk choose to have a march on the same day in the same place, meeting half way. under the Mattmun12 Act Section 420 Subsection 69, it is acceptable for them to scream at eachother (fine on its own, but in eachother's FACES) and kick eachother's signs over. I'm pretty sure it would end in a very violent conflict and there wouldn't be free speech for very long.

don't get me wrong - I'm an anarchist - which is actually why I am opposed to this woman's behavior. because it violates this person's property (their body and their signs). let me put it this way, if I had a business in my ideal society, and this sort of thing was happening, I would ask this lady to leave and use force if absolutely necessary to remove her from the premises. violent and aggressive behavior is not okay to me. at your business you can have whatever rules you like, however I'm not sure how many people are going to want to frequent a place where protestors are constantly duking it out and going completely bonkers
 
+Ashley Buddy False equivocation, they are two difference scenarios. We're not talking about a large group of people, just one. If one person kicks down a small sign, getting police to come in and forcibly remove them is overkill. Especially if they give up and start walking away.
 
+mattmun12
so if I go up to you and start screaming in your face for whatever reason in public, and don't leave you alone, and then I kick down your fence or something (but don't destroy it), you're not going to call the cops? notice she didn't leave until he said he was going to call the cops, and that they simply asked her to go with them and didn't assault her. honestly I was impressed as I would have expected some brutality on their part
 
+mattmun12
Dude pushing people, yelling and violently destroying or attempting to destroy property, whether related to the protest or not, is definitely threatening in the legal sense of the term. Pushing people in and of itself is legally threatening if not assault. Destroying property, or attempting to, is legally threatening. Yelling is a step towards threatening but not quite there yet. The combination of all three is more than enough to arrest this lady. Charges likely wouldn't follow (they could), but an officer would easily be completely justified (rightly so) deeming her as threatening to society and arrest would follow.
 
+mattmun12 
You cant just walk into a store with a friend, get into an argument with him/her and start grabbing things off of the shelf and throwing them around while yelling. Obviously violent behavior. You're wrong, get over it.
 
+mattmun12
Not only that but according to the law (and rightfully so) you have no claim to privacy while in a public area. You can film whoever you want and consent is assumed by simply being in a public area. Anyone who blurs peoples faces out is doing it out of request or respect.
This is why people cannot have sex in public, basically. Again you're wrong and very obviously anti-free speech
 
+mattmun12
Also you seem deficient in recognizing what a false equivocation is. Just because you don't accept it or don't want to doesn't make the equivocation false.
+Ashley Buddy
 
+Edmond Dantes She wouldn't be able to sue. You can record people and post their image online as long as they're in public. The problem lies with making money off of people. If someone doesn't consent to being recorded, that doesn't matter as long as the person recording it doesn't make a profit off of it.  People in public shouldn't expect privacy. 
Add a comment...