Keep in mind that there is a difference between public and private action. The first amendment restriction against interference with the freedom of speech is only a prohibition against government.
Golly, I had no idea. Thanks for that. <snort>
But it should also be kept in mind that what happened in Brandon was a publicly acknowledged conspiracy between the public and private citizens of Rankin County.
while it is true that government agents i.e the police shouldn't run interference for the people opposing WBC, the same can't be said for the tow truck driver. he's a private citizen and can largely do as he pleases. There may, of course, be contractual issues there, but that's not something that can be resolved immediately.
The same can be said of the tow truck driver, actually, if he was a part of the conspiracy. The parking of the pickup trucks and cars in the motel parking lot to block those with Kansas license plates was a move orchestrated by elected officials of Rankin County, including the County Sheriff, the Mayor and the County Judge. It's the same exact tactics that were used during the Civil Rights conflicts down there. Exactly the same. The police may or may not have actually called any tow trucks, and if they did, you can bet the tow truck drivers are the same good ol' boys as the Sheriff and his deputies.
While I do denounce the false arrest tactics, that doesn't mean I also don't find them amusing, given the circumstances.
What circumstances? You mean the circumstances of you not agreeing with what they have to say, so with a wink and a nod and a giddy little chuckle you let an
unabashed abuse of power slide because you find it amusing? What if the shoe was on the other foot. I find it hard to believe that you would find it amusing if you were falsely arrested no matter what the circumstances, but especially if it were because they didn't agree with what you have to say.
hasn't there been times when your son did something wrong and you were simultaneously angry and amused at what he had done? sure, you punished him, but then later you told your friends about it and kind of chuckled at his audacity.
I understand what you're saying, but a government really doesn't have the right to be audacious in their misuse and abuse of power, even when, or perhaps
especially when, you condone it. Where do you draw the line on a slippery slope? Like I said, free speech extends precisely as far as the willingness to allow and defend speech which you do not agree with. If can't do that, then you don't have free speech yourself, and if you conspire with the government to suppress the free speech of others though intimidation and force, then it's something else entirely.
