Summary
A GOP town hall in Idaho turned violent when private security, LEAR Asset Management, forcibly removed Teresa Borrenpohl for speaking out.
The incident escalated after Borrenpohl questioned a panelist’s anti-abortion stance, leading to her being dragged out by unmarked security. Sheriff Norris, present but in plainclothes, did not intervene initially.
LEAR, known for aggressive tactics, was revealed to have been hired by the town hall organizers. Police later revoked LEAR’s city license and clarified that removing someone for speaking out is unlawful.
The incident shows rising tensions and the blurring lines between political events and private security enforcement in conservative areas.
Let me help you out there.
The consequences in this statement will exclude stuff like imprisonment or illegal actions, as it would otherwise not constitute free speech. What is meant by consequences in that statement is social consequences, like being ignored, being “cancelled” or maybe being called names, like bigot.
For some reason people like to lament that “you aren’t allowed to say this bigoted thing anymore”. This statement rightly points out that you are, but people are also allowed to call you an asshole for doing it.
I literally referenced that in my comment.
The point is that the rhetoric is so poorly and foolishly phrased that it erodes the actual rights of the people.
It’s not foolishly phrased. The limits of the consequences are implicit by using “freedom of speech”. It feels more like you are just foolishly interpreting the statement. The statement doesn’t even pertain to the article in the post.
I’ve only ever seen it being used correctly to point out that speech having social consequences does not mean you don’t have freedom of speech. If someone says “oh woe is me, why can’t I say the n word anymore”, I don’t think going into a 30 minute tirade about the intricacies of freedom of speech is going to work out for you.
You don’t have a Constitutional right to say the N word at your job, but you have a Constitutional right to ask your government questions.
They’re not the same thing, as equally important as they are to you.
I’m going to laugh when you people get sent to the work camps as the “consequences” of your speech while you’re too stubborn to admit that the rhetoric you use can have unintended consequences.
And that is all i ever need to know about you.
Think of me when the judge/jury drops the “consequences” line on you!
deleted by creator
What are you smoking and can I have some
🤣
Getting in my practice runs. I’d suggest you guys start working on your cardio now, it’ll be easier on you than having to develop your endurance at the end of a DOGE cattleprod.
^ Wut the acktual phuck are you even talking about here?
How did the people on Lemmy bring about the jackbooted thug shit at this town hall?
Didn’t hear the little tinpot dictator drop his line about “consequences?”
Lemmy alone didn’t do shit because there’s not enough of us to matter. Spreading suspiciously poorly phrased rhetoric is about more than one little corner of the internet though.
They repeat it to their friends. They said it on Twitter before leaving.
And the people who said it there kept saying and defending it here. All because they can’t figure out that a slogan that needs a paragraph of explanation to properly understand as anything but an attack on liberty is a bad fucking slogan.
The fascists won’t change their actions because of it, they’ll do what they want to their “enemies” because that’s what a fascist is, but they’ll toss the idiot words back in our faces while the brainless horde of “centrists” will bob their little brainlet cases and go “Yeah. These are the consequences for your harmful speech!”
The phrase is eroded to you because you can’t understand it yet. Not to everyone. The actual rights of the people is to speak at town hall, not to puke hate speech from their phone out to a teen app for sharing your thoughts. You do understand that it is most likely that you will be cattle prod long before the people you hate, right?