Re:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sters.html
"If a store's windows must be broken to prevent a protester's facial bones from being broken or eye being permanently damaged,
that is more than a fair trade ... while cops have a 'very difficult and often thankless job,' protesters 'have an absolute right
to demonstrate and protest the actions of government officials, including police officers.' "

Judge Jackson is effectively arguing that "free speech" includes the right to damage property
... and by extension of his argument, the right to injure people trying to protect the property ...
and the right to take stuff from the property. Such is now the "right of protest"!

And no one argues that protection/prevention may cause harm to a person protesting.

"Free speech" is defined so differently than when conceived by the U.S. Constitution!
Not a problem! - this just needs better clarification by the U.S. Supreme Court ...
so that police can be properly trained ... since "all lives matter".
Rod
