Mike Marshman Portland Chief of police vows to defend First Amendment Rights...

[jc456]

God Bless him.

He is a veteran of the force (and probably remembers a time when people were civilized and voiced their concerns without violence in America) and states clearly that his force will support all opinions and "sides" of protests so that they can exericise their Rights.

This certainly can't be easy in this environment, but, considering what the mayor stated that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution (which is incorrect), this position is one of honour, character and integrity and illustrates that the police are up to the task.

I may not like all of the hatred and anger of some of this speech, but as one very intelligent man said in a roundabout way "I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it".

Cheers to Chief Marshman and the Portland police.

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

he was referring to what the mayor stated. but hey, way to stay informed.

Informed of what?

exactly, you have no idea what thread you're in eh?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

God Bless him.

He is a veteran of the force (and probably remembers a time when people were civilized and voiced their concerns without violence in America) and states clearly that his force will support all opinions and "sides" of protests so that they can exericise their Rights.

This certainly can't be easy in this environment, but, considering what the mayor stated that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution (which is incorrect), this position is one of honour, character and integrity and illustrates that the police are up to the task.

I may not like all of the hatred and anger of some of this speech, but as one very intelligent man said in a roundabout way "I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it".

Cheers to Chief Marshman and the Portland police.

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

he was referring to what the mayor stated. but hey, way to stay informed.

Informed of what?

exactly, you have no idea what thread you're in eh?

Enlighten us all, retard.
Explain why this point is so important to make after such a horrendous attack fueled by hate. Do you agree with the attacker?

 

[jc456]

God Bless him.

He is a veteran of the force (and probably remembers a time when people were civilized and voiced their concerns without violence in America) and states clearly that his force will support all opinions and "sides" of protests so that they can exericise their Rights.

This certainly can't be easy in this environment, but, considering what the mayor stated that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution (which is incorrect), this position is one of honour, character and integrity and illustrates that the police are up to the task.

I may not like all of the hatred and anger of some of this speech, but as one very intelligent man said in a roundabout way "I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it".

Cheers to Chief Marshman and the Portland police.

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

he was referring to what the mayor stated. but hey, way to stay informed.

Informed of what?

exactly, you have no idea what thread you're in eh?

Enlighten us all, retard.
Explain why this point is so important to make after such a horrendous attack fueled by hate. Do you agree with the attacker?

what about the attacker, the thread isn't about him? again, you need to read the OP bubba, you're fking lost.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

he was referring to what the mayor stated. but hey, way to stay informed.

Informed of what?

exactly, you have no idea what thread you're in eh?

Enlighten us all, retard.
Explain why this point is so important to make after such a horrendous attack fueled by hate. Do you agree with the attacker?

what about the attacker, the thread isn't about him? again, you need to read the OP bubba, you're fking lost.

Only because the OP was entirely ignorant of the attack, dope.

 

[jc456]

he was referring to what the mayor stated. but hey, way to stay informed.

Informed of what?

exactly, you have no idea what thread you're in eh?

Enlighten us all, retard.
Explain why this point is so important to make after such a horrendous attack fueled by hate. Do you agree with the attacker?

what about the attacker, the thread isn't about him? again, you need to read the OP bubba, you're fking lost.

Only because the OP was entirely ignorant of the attack, dope.

well now for the fifth time, the OP isn't about the attack. It is about the Mayor. but hey thanks for staying stupid.

 

[martybegan]

God Bless him.

He is a veteran of the force (and probably remembers a time when people were civilized and voiced their concerns without violence in America) and states clearly that his force will support all opinions and "sides" of protests so that they can exericise their Rights.

This certainly can't be easy in this environment, but, considering what the mayor stated that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution (which is incorrect), this position is one of honour, character and integrity and illustrates that the police are up to the task.

I may not like all of the hatred and anger of some of this speech, but as one very intelligent man said in a roundabout way "I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it".

Cheers to Chief Marshman and the Portland police.

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

Read the original story, the Mayor wanted to cancel two other planned protests by groups un-related to the nutter responsible for the attacks. part of the Mayor's justification was the Mayor's erroneous belief that Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment, a point the ACLU and now the local sheriff have now refuted.

What story?
Neither you nor the OP linked any story.

Opinion | Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’

Of course, googling "Portland Mayor demonstration permit revoke" is sooooooo hard.

Of course linking the story so readers have an idea of WTF the point is makes no sense to you dopes.

We assume most posters either have a general idea of current events, or at least are able to string 2-3 google words together.

I guess I doth assume too much.

 

[martybegan]

God Bless him.

He is a veteran of the force (and probably remembers a time when people were civilized and voiced their concerns without violence in America) and states clearly that his force will support all opinions and "sides" of protests so that they can exericise their Rights.

This certainly can't be easy in this environment, but, considering what the mayor stated that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution (which is incorrect), this position is one of honour, character and integrity and illustrates that the police are up to the task.

I may not like all of the hatred and anger of some of this speech, but as one very intelligent man said in a roundabout way "I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it".

Cheers to Chief Marshman and the Portland police.

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

Read the original story, the Mayor wanted to cancel two other planned protests by groups un-related to the nutter responsible for the attacks. part of the Mayor's justification was the Mayor's erroneous belief that Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment, a point the ACLU and now the local sheriff have now refuted.

What story?
Neither you nor the OP linked any story.

Opinion | Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’

Of course, googling "Portland Mayor demonstration permit revoke" is sooooooo hard.

The OP makes no mention of the police chief. In fact, if you google him you find out he's met with inter faith groups about cops shooting a suspect and he was suspended pending an investigation of administrative concerns.

The OP is a lame attempt to promote alt-R hate speech, which while protected is as vile, and perhaps worse, than burning a flag ... as it can promote violence.

So the Mayor is right that Hate Speech isn't protected, or not?

Any type of speech can "promote violence", the real line is inciting violence.

In what context were the mayor's comments made?
Post train attack?

In the context of being a speech surpressing leftist twatwaddle using a tragic event as an excuse to suppress speech by people unrelated to the incident.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Informed of what?

exactly, you have no idea what thread you're in eh?

Enlighten us all, retard.
Explain why this point is so important to make after such a horrendous attack fueled by hate. Do you agree with the attacker?

what about the attacker, the thread isn't about him? again, you need to read the OP bubba, you're fking lost.

Only because the OP was entirely ignorant of the attack, dope.

well now for the fifth time, the OP isn't about the attack. It is about the Mayor. but hey thanks for staying stupid.

Derp.

You can't separate the two, dope.
What were the mayor's comments regarding?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

Read the original story, the Mayor wanted to cancel two other planned protests by groups un-related to the nutter responsible for the attacks. part of the Mayor's justification was the Mayor's erroneous belief that Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment, a point the ACLU and now the local sheriff have now refuted.

What story?
Neither you nor the OP linked any story.

Opinion | Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’

Of course, googling "Portland Mayor demonstration permit revoke" is sooooooo hard.

Of course linking the story so readers have an idea of WTF the point is makes no sense to you dopes.

We assume most posters either have a general idea of current events, or at least are able to string 2-3 google words together.

I guess I doth assume too much.

I'm not a mind reader. The OP claims he didn't even know of the attack. That means he had no idea in what context the mayor made his comment. Neither do I as he never posted it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

God Bless him.

He is a veteran of the force (and probably remembers a time when people were civilized and voiced their concerns without violence in America) and states clearly that his force will support all opinions and "sides" of protests so that they can exericise their Rights.

This certainly can't be easy in this environment, but, considering what the mayor stated that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution (which is incorrect), this position is one of honour, character and integrity and illustrates that the police are up to the task.

I may not like all of the hatred and anger of some of this speech, but as one very intelligent man said in a roundabout way "I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it".

Cheers to Chief Marshman and the Portland police.

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

What story?
Neither you nor the OP linked any story.

Opinion | Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’

Of course, googling "Portland Mayor demonstration permit revoke" is sooooooo hard.

The OP makes no mention of the police chief. In fact, if you google him you find out he's met with inter faith groups about cops shooting a suspect and he was suspended pending an investigation of administrative concerns.

The OP is a lame attempt to promote alt-R hate speech, which while protected is as vile, and perhaps worse, than burning a flag ... as it can promote violence.

So the Mayor is right that Hate Speech isn't protected, or not?

Any type of speech can "promote violence", the real line is inciting violence.

In what context were the mayor's comments made?
Post train attack?

In the context of being a speech surpressing leftist twatwaddle using a tragic event as an excuse to suppress speech by people unrelated to the incident.

Yet the OP claims ignorance of the attack.

 

[martybegan]

Read the original story, the Mayor wanted to cancel two other planned protests by groups un-related to the nutter responsible for the attacks. part of the Mayor's justification was the Mayor's erroneous belief that Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment, a point the ACLU and now the local sheriff have now refuted.

What story?
Neither you nor the OP linked any story.

Opinion | Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’

Of course, googling "Portland Mayor demonstration permit revoke" is sooooooo hard.

Of course linking the story so readers have an idea of WTF the point is makes no sense to you dopes.

We assume most posters either have a general idea of current events, or at least are able to string 2-3 google words together.

I guess I doth assume too much.

I'm not a mind reader. The OP claims he didn't even know of the attack. That means he had no idea in what context the mayor made his comment. Neither do I as he never posted it.

I gave the context, stop crying over the OP's omission. You now have all the data.

 

[martybegan]

Please clarify that you are not attempting to advocate for the behavior of the lunatic on the train.

I get your point but if you're attempting to somehow victimize the lunatic perpetrator, then you're way off in the weeds.

Opinion | Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’

Of course, googling "Portland Mayor demonstration permit revoke" is sooooooo hard.

The OP makes no mention of the police chief. In fact, if you google him you find out he's met with inter faith groups about cops shooting a suspect and he was suspended pending an investigation of administrative concerns.

The OP is a lame attempt to promote alt-R hate speech, which while protected is as vile, and perhaps worse, than burning a flag ... as it can promote violence.

So the Mayor is right that Hate Speech isn't protected, or not?

Any type of speech can "promote violence", the real line is inciting violence.

In what context were the mayor's comments made?
Post train attack?

In the context of being a speech surpressing leftist twatwaddle using a tragic event as an excuse to suppress speech by people unrelated to the incident.

Yet the OP claims ignorance of the attack.

Good for him. I on the other hand know of both the original attack, and the Mayor's attempt to suppress someone else's speech because of it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What story?
Neither you nor the OP linked any story.

Opinion | Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’

Of course, googling "Portland Mayor demonstration permit revoke" is sooooooo hard.

Of course linking the story so readers have an idea of WTF the point is makes no sense to you dopes.

We assume most posters either have a general idea of current events, or at least are able to string 2-3 google words together.

I guess I doth assume too much.

I'm not a mind reader. The OP claims he didn't even know of the attack. That means he had no idea in what context the mayor made his comment. Neither do I as he never posted it.

I gave the context, stop crying over the OP's omission. You now have all the data.

No, you gave your opinion of what the OP was trying to say. He couldn't make your point, dope if he never knew of the attack.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The OP makes no mention of the police chief. In fact, if you google him you find out he's met with inter faith groups about cops shooting a suspect and he was suspended pending an investigation of administrative concerns.

The OP is a lame attempt to promote alt-R hate speech, which while protected is as vile, and perhaps worse, than burning a flag ... as it can promote violence.

So the Mayor is right that Hate Speech isn't protected, or not?

Any type of speech can "promote violence", the real line is inciting violence.

In what context were the mayor's comments made?
Post train attack?

In the context of being a speech surpressing leftist twatwaddle using a tragic event as an excuse to suppress speech by people unrelated to the incident.

Yet the OP claims ignorance of the attack.

Good for him. I on the other hand know of both the original attack, and the Mayor's attempt to suppress someone else's speech because of it.

Why do you support groups that enable such lunacy?

 

[martybegan]

So the Mayor is right that Hate Speech isn't protected, or not?

Any type of speech can "promote violence", the real line is inciting violence.

In what context were the mayor's comments made?
Post train attack?

In the context of being a speech surpressing leftist twatwaddle using a tragic event as an excuse to suppress speech by people unrelated to the incident.

Yet the OP claims ignorance of the attack.

Good for him. I on the other hand know of both the original attack, and the Mayor's attempt to suppress someone else's speech because of it.

Why do you support groups that enable such lunacy?

how are they enabling a madman attacking people on a Train?

 

[martybegan]

Opinion | Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’

Of course, googling "Portland Mayor demonstration permit revoke" is sooooooo hard.

Of course linking the story so readers have an idea of WTF the point is makes no sense to you dopes.

We assume most posters either have a general idea of current events, or at least are able to string 2-3 google words together.

I guess I doth assume too much.

I'm not a mind reader. The OP claims he didn't even know of the attack. That means he had no idea in what context the mayor made his comment. Neither do I as he never posted it.

I gave the context, stop crying over the OP's omission. You now have all the data.

No, you gave your opinion of what the OP was trying to say. He couldn't make your point, dope if he never knew of the attack.

I gave an opinion on my view of the Mayor's response, and why it is unconstitutional, and partisan bullshit.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So the Mayor is right that Hate Speech isn't protected, or not?

Any type of speech can "promote violence", the real line is inciting violence.

In what context were the mayor's comments made?
Post train attack?

In the context of being a speech surpressing leftist twatwaddle using a tragic event as an excuse to suppress speech by people unrelated to the incident.

Yet the OP claims ignorance of the attack.

Good for him. I on the other hand know of both the original attack, and the Mayor's attempt to suppress someone else's speech because of it.

Why do you support groups that enable such lunacy?

Why do you support groups that enable people who destroy/loot businesses, vandalize/burn campuses, and shoot police.

*****CHUCKLE******

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course linking the story so readers have an idea of WTF the point is makes no sense to you dopes.

We assume most posters either have a general idea of current events, or at least are able to string 2-3 google words together.

I guess I doth assume too much.

I'm not a mind reader. The OP claims he didn't even know of the attack. That means he had no idea in what context the mayor made his comment. Neither do I as he never posted it.

I gave the context, stop crying over the OP's omission. You now have all the data.

No, you gave your opinion of what the OP was trying to say. He couldn't make your point, dope if he never knew of the attack.

I gave an opinion on my view of the Mayor's response, and why it is unconstitutional, and partisan bullshit.

Yet has nothing to do with my post to the OP that you high jacked.

 

[martybegan]

We assume most posters either have a general idea of current events, or at least are able to string 2-3 google words together.

I guess I doth assume too much.

I'm not a mind reader. The OP claims he didn't even know of the attack. That means he had no idea in what context the mayor made his comment. Neither do I as he never posted it.

I gave the context, stop crying over the OP's omission. You now have all the data.

No, you gave your opinion of what the OP was trying to say. He couldn't make your point, dope if he never knew of the attack.

I gave an opinion on my view of the Mayor's response, and why it is unconstitutional, and partisan bullshit.

Yet has nothing to do with my post to the OP that you high jacked.

how can I hijack a response to a post?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In what context were the mayor's comments made?
Post train attack?

In the context of being a speech surpressing leftist twatwaddle using a tragic event as an excuse to suppress speech by people unrelated to the incident.

Yet the OP claims ignorance of the attack.

Good for him. I on the other hand know of both the original attack, and the Mayor's attempt to suppress someone else's speech because of it.

Why do you support groups that enable such lunacy?

Why do you support groups that enable people who destroy/loot businesses, vandalize/burn campuses, and shoot police.

*****CHUCKLE******

Are there groups that endorse such behavior? I've never seen nor endorsed one.
White supremacists do in fact support violence.