Terroism- "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
See you act like these violent protests don't effect civilians or other people, especially those who disagree. But terrorism is not just defined on harming those 'not involved'. And there is deffinately acts of terrorism in a lot of these violent protests.
The first amendment says the government cannot suppress your ability to have freedom of speech--however, no one else is required to listen to others unless they wish to. It is not opposing free speech to not agree with another's opinions.
what these rioters did WAS oppressing free speech. listening to the conservative speaker was completely optional and they were not forced to go. if they disagreed with him they could have just not attended the event or attended it and voiced their opinion on why they disagreed with him. instead they chose to be violent and destroyed private property and their own school, not to mention they viciously attacked people who tried to stop the violence. sorry, but anyone who thinks violence towards others because you disagree with their opinion is ok is completely bigoted.
>"what these rioters did WAS oppressing free speech"
I was not arguing whether or not it's okay to riot or break property, I was just telling you that "freedom of speech" applies to the fact that our government cannot shut anyone down for their viewpoints. The first amendment is for checks and balances on the government. The people rioting (people who are not affiliated with the government) are within their rights to suppress free speech.
I did not say that it is okay to break property or be violent. I did not say that it is okay to be violent towards others because you disagree with them.
"I did not say that it is okay to break property or be violent. I did not say that it is okay to be violent towards others because you disagree with them."
"The people rioting (people who are not affiliated with the government) are within their rights to suppress free speech. "
- when you say statements like this ^ you ARE defending violent behavior, that's how they suppress free speech, by being violent
everyone is entitled to an opinion in a free country like the US. what makes these violent thugs's opinions more superior to others so that they can violate a person's first amendment rights? again, everyone has the right to have an opinion and everyone has the right to equally disagree with that opinion but NO ONE has the right to suppress free speech regardless if they are in government or a private citizen. saying otherwise means one of two things:
1. you won't condemn the rioters' behavior because you share the same ideology as them
2. you are closed minded because you refuse to hear out what others have to say