Boo Weekley said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

If Quentin Tarantino was not a lib he would be very worried.

But if your a lib you can wear black face and we are all good

---

Is he even a liberal? I've always wondered about him but he has struck me as a free thinker who is not afraid to offend anyone. He's definitely a nutjob though.

---

He is in Hollywood so I would say the odds are pretty high that he is a democrat. Throw in that he said that Obama was his favorite president and I would say yes he is most likely a lib.

Sasappis said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

Both sides only like free speech that they approve of. The days of either party actually supporting free speech are gone.

---

LOL gtfo with this moral high ground game of trying to equate the two sides to appear noble and virtuous. WTH are you talking about?

---

Here is a good example of folks violating the 1st Amendment to arrest anti-police folks they disagree with.

Quote:

---

Tennessee law enforcement arrested a man last week for posting a photoshopped picture of two men urinating on a dead police officer's grave.

The Dickson County Sheriff's Office, following an investigation by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), arrested and charged Joshua Garton with harassment after Garton posted a picture to Facebook that appeared to show two men desecrating the tombstone of Sgt. Daniel Baker, who was shot and killed on duty in 2018. Garton was held on a $76,000 bond.

"Agents subsequently visited Baker's gravesite this morning and determined the photograph was digitally manufactured," a TBI press release says. The agency launched the investigation at the request of 23rd District Attorney General Ray Crouch.

While the picture was in poor taste, constitutional experts say law enforcement violated Garton's First Amendment rights by arresting him for the image.

"The First Amendment clearly and unmistakably protects this man's right to post an offensive photo about a police officer," says Daniel Horwitz, a Nashville civil rights attorney. "The only people who broke the law here were the police officers and TBI agents who participated in this flagrantly unconstitutional arrest."

---

https://reason.com/2021/01/25/tennessee-cops-arrest-man-for-posting-photoshopped-picture-of-men-urinating-on-dead-officers-grave/


When they released the public records on the matter there were text messages between the cops where they admit that the arrest was illegal and was strictly retaliatory.

Now tell me how this is any different than what happened in Connecticut.

---

That incident should not have happened. But they had to stretch to find a law that was 'violated'. Whereas the incident in Connecticut cites a law actually on the books. Both wrong, but a bit different imo.

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

agracer said:

---

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

---

From page 1:

The crime?

posting a pic on snapchat with caption reading 'he should be in chains'.

[url=https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/brookfield/schools/teen-accused-of-making-racist-online-post-targeting-fellow-fairfield-warde-student/808674/][/url]https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/brookfield/schools/teen-accused-of-making-racist-online-post-targeting-fellow-fairfield-warde-student/808674/

Sasappis said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

Both sides only like free speech that they approve of. The days of either party actually supporting free speech are gone.

---

LOL gtfo with this moral high ground game of trying to equate the two sides to appear noble and virtuous. WTH are you talking about?

---

Here is a good example of folks violating the 1st Amendment to arrest anti-police folks they disagree with.

Quote:

---

Tennessee law enforcement arrested a man last week for posting a photoshopped picture of two men urinating on a dead police officer's grave.

The Dickson County Sheriff's Office, following an investigation by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), arrested and charged Joshua Garton with harassment after Garton posted a picture to Facebook that appeared to show two men desecrating the tombstone of Sgt. Daniel Baker, who was shot and killed on duty in 2018. Garton was held on a $76,000 bond.

"Agents subsequently visited Baker's gravesite this morning and determined the photograph was digitally manufactured," a TBI press release says. The agency launched the investigation at the request of 23rd District Attorney General Ray Crouch.

While the picture was in poor taste, constitutional experts say law enforcement violated Garton's First Amendment rights by arresting him for the image.

"The First Amendment clearly and unmistakably protects this man's right to post an offensive photo about a police officer," says Daniel Horwitz, a Nashville civil rights attorney. "The only people who broke the law here were the police officers and TBI agents who participated in this flagrantly unconstitutional arrest."

---

https://reason.com/2021/01/25/tennessee-cops-arrest-man-for-posting-photoshopped-picture-of-men-urinating-on-dead-officers-grave/


When they released the public records on the matter there were text messages between the cops where they admit that the arrest was illegal and was strictly retaliatory.

Now tell me how this is any different than what happened in Connecticut.

---

Wow, an extreme isolated case of corruption. But you posted this...

Quote:

---

Both sides only like free speech that they approve of. The days of either party actually supporting free speech are gone.

---

Which is just silly and dishonest. Any isolated cases you could post from the right pale in comparison to the all out assault and attack against free speech from the left and the general anti free speech sentiment prevalent on their side.

What you said would be like saying "hey, both the nazis and the US military had anti-semites in their ranks...both sides do it". Just mindless nonsense that only a concerned moderate type hellbent on appearing "super unbiased" and "neutral" is capable of. It's like a never ending fetish for some of you...to always equate both sides.

88planoAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

---

From page 1:

The crime?

posting a pic on snapchat with caption reading 'he should be in chains'.

[url=https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/brookfield/schools/teen-accused-of-making-racist-online-post-targeting-fellow-fairfield-warde-student/808674/][/url]https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/brookfield/schools/teen-accused-of-making-racist-online-post-targeting-fellow-fairfield-warde-student/808674/

---

Just doesn't seem like there's enough info to determine if racist here. Does he mean in chains as in "should go to jail"? Or is he saying the other guy should literally be enslaved? I need more context, it may not even be insensitive if the other guy is a criminal dirtbag or something.

Sasappis said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

Both sides only like free speech that they approve of. The days of either party actually supporting free speech are gone.

---

LOL gtfo with this moral high ground game of trying to equate the two sides to appear noble and virtuous. WTH are you talking about?

---

Here is a good example of folks violating the 1st Amendment to arrest anti-police folks they disagree with.

Quote:

---

Tennessee law enforcement arrested a man last week for posting a photoshopped picture of two men urinating on a dead police officer's grave.

The Dickson County Sheriff's Office, following an investigation by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), arrested and charged Joshua Garton with harassment after Garton posted a picture to Facebook that appeared to show two men desecrating the tombstone of Sgt. Daniel Baker, who was shot and killed on duty in 2018. Garton was held on a $76,000 bond.

"Agents subsequently visited Baker's gravesite this morning and determined the photograph was digitally manufactured," a TBI press release says. The agency launched the investigation at the request of 23rd District Attorney General Ray Crouch.

While the picture was in poor taste, constitutional experts say law enforcement violated Garton's First Amendment rights by arresting him for the image.

"The First Amendment clearly and unmistakably protects this man's right to post an offensive photo about a police officer," says Daniel Horwitz, a Nashville civil rights attorney. "The only people who broke the law here were the police officers and TBI agents who participated in this flagrantly unconstitutional arrest."

---

https://reason.com/2021/01/25/tennessee-cops-arrest-man-for-posting-photoshopped-picture-of-men-urinating-on-dead-officers-grave/


When they released the public records on the matter there were text messages between the cops where they admit that the arrest was illegal and was strictly retaliatory.

Now tell me how this is any different than what happened in Connecticut.

---

Show me where conservatives are supporting this action? How do we even know the police offices are not liberals? This it quite a stretch to say it is proof both sides like to limit speach they don't like.

Boo Weekley said:

---

88planoAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

---

From page 1:

The crime?

posting a pic on snapchat with caption reading 'he should be in chains'.

[url=https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/brookfield/schools/teen-accused-of-making-racist-online-post-targeting-fellow-fairfield-warde-student/808674/][/url]https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/brookfield/schools/teen-accused-of-making-racist-online-post-targeting-fellow-fairfield-warde-student/808674/

---

Just doesn't seem like there's enough info to determine if racist here. Does he mean in chains as in "should go to jail"? Or is he saying the other guy should literally be enslaved? I need more context, it may not even be insensitive if the other guy is a criminal dirtbag or something.

---

Agreed. I think it was kids - I guess a 16 year old could be a criminal dirtbag - but I can't find anything other than the above. No copy of the snap with ugly words blurred - nothing.

I wonder, could a white teenage kid get arrested for lip syncing a 50 cent rap that dropped the "N" word?

Would be an interesting piece of performance art.

Trump was in power then until January.
Mix in a calendar dementia Joe.

Only in Connecticut, you know where George W Bush is from.

Everything is racist now days.

Have you noticed most TV commercials now have a white guy paired with a black woman?

Where was that when Angela Basset and I were young? WTH?

agracer said:

---

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

agracer said:

---

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

---

---

I'm not taking a side on this...but what did you think was going to happen posting something like this. A little common sense goes a long way.

I don't think he expected to get hooked and booked for offending someone.

Sasappis said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

Both sides only like free speech that they approve of. The days of either party actually supporting free speech are gone.

---

LOL gtfo with this moral high ground game of trying to equate the two sides to appear noble and virtuous. WTH are you talking about?

---

Here is a good example of folks violating the 1st Amendment to arrest anti-police folks they disagree with.

Quote:

---

Tennessee law enforcement arrested a man last week for posting a photoshopped picture of two men urinating on a dead police officer's grave.

The Dickson County Sheriff's Office, following an investigation by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), arrested and charged Joshua Garton with harassment after Garton posted a picture to Facebook that appeared to show two men desecrating the tombstone of Sgt. Daniel Baker, who was shot and killed on duty in 2018. Garton was held on a $76,000 bond.

"Agents subsequently visited Baker's gravesite this morning and determined the photograph was digitally manufactured," a TBI press release says. The agency launched the investigation at the request of 23rd District Attorney General Ray Crouch.

While the picture was in poor taste, constitutional experts say law enforcement violated Garton's First Amendment rights by arresting him for the image.

"The First Amendment clearly and unmistakably protects this man's right to post an offensive photo about a police officer," says Daniel Horwitz, a Nashville civil rights attorney. "The only people who broke the law here were the police officers and TBI agents who participated in this flagrantly unconstitutional arrest."

---

https://reason.com/2021/01/25/tennessee-cops-arrest-man-for-posting-photoshopped-picture-of-men-urinating-on-dead-officers-grave/


When they released the public records on the matter there were text messages between the cops where they admit that the arrest was illegal and was strictly retaliatory.

Now tell me how this is any different than what happened in Connecticut.

---

simple, one was anti cop -- other was anti BLM -- tell me which gets off free and clear

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

agracer said:

---

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

---

---

I'm not taking a side on this...but what did you think was going to happen posting something like this. A little common sense goes a long way.

---

It was an a**hole comment and yes it seems pretty blatantly racist, vs some of the 'racism' of today. However since when is this speech against the law? Isn't it 'I hate the speech but will defend his right to say it?'

In school and cyberbullying is a different issue, breaking school rules, sure, but arrested??

The kid is a racist turd, but this is a gratuitous, obvious violation of the First Amendment rights of this punk. We simply cannot tolerate this kind of abuse.

If an individual refers to other individuals who have high levels of skin pigmentation as "Roaches", will you go to jail?

The divorce really needs to get here before the violence

Gumby said:

---

You can be arrested for using a racial slur. Will the prisons be filled with rap artists?

---

Yes. Just keepin' it real. Johnny Cash would approve.

Back in the day.
No social media.
White dude whispers that to another white dude.
Then....nothing happens.

Oh yah, exactly, back in the day... if surrounding yourself with people at the level of a low iq middle school girl clique. lol, TxTarpon's posse back in the day could be discovered and identified as a new social sub culture of those harmed by high tech advancement.

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

agracer said:

---

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

---

---

I'm not taking a side on this...but what did you think was going to happen posting something like this. A little common sense goes a long way.

---

Uhhhh...you should be taking the side that arresting someone for this speech is a blatant violation.

Quote:

---

Oh yah, exactly, back in the day... if surrounding yourself with people at the level of a low iq middle school girl clique. lol,

---

Was it like that for you in band?
I am sure you blew a mean flute(s).

Quote:

---

TxTarpon's posse back in the day could be discovered and identified as a new social sub culture of those harmed by high tech advancement.

---

Yalls millennial/GenZ "online courage" did not exist back then.

https://apnews.com/article/fairfield-connecticut-high-school-racist-post-36ab75190a03be2ccd4dddbda1544ff8

Quote:

---

"Having racist ideas or sharing racist ideas is something that we actually protect," said Emerson Sykes, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's national chapter. "Even if that viewpoint is offensive, even if it's deplorable, we don't want the government making the call about what's OK to say and think and what is not. But we have limitations on that right."

---

Thank you for posting the follow up!

Quote:

---

The Greater Bridgeport NAACP had called for criminal charges for the Snapchat post. It is also calling for an arrest in another incident the following day in which Jamar Medor's brother was called racist slurs in a phone call, said the Rev. D. Stanley Lord, president of the NAACP chapter.

Police officials said they could not confirm details of the second incident, but are investigating a complaint involving juveniles and a possible racial slur said during a phone call.

---

Ooooo...you got called a name on a phone call.
In 1975 you would have challenged the guy who said that to a parking lot fight.
2021 call the cops for a crime.
Just wait until your ChiCom Masters call you that.
Then what? Cry?

88planoAg said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

agracer said:

---

Do we know what exactly was posted or do we all just get to keep being outraged with little context?

---

---

I'm not taking a side on this...but what did you think was going to happen posting something like this. A little common sense goes a long way.

---

It was an a**hole comment and yes it seems pretty blatantly racist, vs some of the 'racism' of today. However since when is this speech against the law? Isn't it 'I hate the speech but will defend his right to say it?'

In school and cyberbullying is a different issue, breaking school rules, sure, but arrested??

---

I agree with you on the point regarding arrest. That IS ridiculous. I think I'm just too old to view this objectively. I'm an Old. When I was a kid, this would have resulted in both parties squaring off in the locker room or parking lot after school. Kids today just don't understand repercussions for putting all their thoughts out into the ether.

Mike was right.

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant. Then it tries to silence good.

Sasappis said:

---

Both sides only like free speech that they approve of. The days of either party actually supporting free speech are gone.

---

Bull***** Classic deflection, say "everybody does it". I'm a conservatives and every g damned conservative I know has NO problem with anyone saying whatever the F is on their mind. It's the libs, the Progressive, the new fascist, who are shutting people down.

That being said, if you are referring to Establishment DC, both Dem and Rep Parties, then I sadly must agree with you.

All the more reason for Trump. And driving the Bushes, the Liz Cheneys, and all their cronies out of office.