Anonymous ID: b1e16e Aug. 26, 2025, 6:01 a.m. No.23510129   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>23509782

>charring of property

it does not say someone else's property, or where the inflammation happens.

 

the definition fits. If someone is unhinged enough to start an accelerated fire in public, then the wind picks up and the property then wraps around a protester's body causing harm or death, is it still protected free speech?

Anonymous ID: b1e16e Aug. 26, 2025, 6:09 a.m. No.23510151   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>23510148

post cannot cause physical harm. once your freedom of screech infringes on the right of another to be left the fuck alone, you are participating in wrongact

Anonymous ID: b1e16e Aug. 26, 2025, 6:17 a.m. No.23510175   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0180 >>0187

>>23510155

arson is burning property. doesn't say who's, or where.

 

The same message can be made by soiling, grinding, ripping, tearing.

 

the moment fire comes out, it becomes a hazard to others around and is not protected free speech. What kind of idiot are you that you think the only way to express yourself is unsecured inflammation of a lightweight banner?

 

If you truly want to express yourself in a meaningful way, use words, motherfucker.

 

I hope when you fire up your next flag in town square that the wind blows it back onto you, giving you severe 3rd degree burns so you can feel so unique and smart with your dumbass application of what you think the 1st amendment protects.

 

dimwit.