Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I am not advocating proscribing yours, or anybody else's, free expression. You raised the issue of why it might be bad and I thought the fact that the Courts find the behavior prejudicial to the truth seeking process might have some relevance, though admittedly not much. It was a starting point in addressing the question you raised, nothing more.i think that rule is proper. But this is a message board, so I have the freedom to write what I think without that kind of necessary restriction.As a prosecutor I am not allowed to compare the actions of defendants to that of an animal, more less to call them one directly. Doing so would be cause for a mistrial and potentially for censuring by the State Supreme Court. Not that rules of comportment in our courts are necessarily analogous to how we behave elsewhere, or why. I just thought it worth posting.Maybe. I still don't see why it's wrong to label looters as animals and scum.Sorry tim, you are correct but you forfeited the right to chastise folks on over the top rhetoric last night.I was really pissed off at the looters last night (still am) and used words like scum and animals to describe them. What really bothered me was not just the fact that they were ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful protestors, but that this was not spontaneous: these ####ers knew what was going to happen and were eager to take advantage of it. That's why so many wore masks.
But some of the rhetoric here is way over the top. We need to keep a little perspective. It would be more accurate to say that the looters were normal people who chose to act like thugs, scum, animals, etc. If caught they should be prosecuted for their crimes. But they don't deserve to die.
Last edited by a moderator: