> And DDOS'ing is very clearly a tactic that violates the first amendment.
I don't follow this, much less find it "very clear." DDOSing is a crime and the prevention of it is a service provided by a third party. It's not a free speech issue.
Furthermore, you're really blaming the victim in your analysis of Charlottesville.
> Furthermore, you're really blaming the victim in your analysis of Charlottesville.
Well they're both the victims and the perpetrators. It's not legal to drive over them, but it's also not legal for them to try to prevent the people from organizing the rally from speaking.
Stuff like this has been happening for hundreds of years, there's actually a reason why the laws are the way they are.
> People _are_ allowed to shout over protesters. It's legal to do that.
Sometimes. If organizing a rally requires a government permit, then having the government give another permit for the same time and place to people whose aim was to disrupt the rally would probably violate the first amendment rights of the rally organizers. And that's basically what happened in Charlottesville, the rally organizers had permits and the protestors did not.
> having the government give another permit for the same time and place to people whose aim was to disrupt the rally would probably violate the first amendment rights of the rally organizers. And
You keep saying that this violates the first amendment rights of the protesters but yet again you're not backing that up in any way. How does this violate their first amendment right? I'm just not seeing it.
> And DDOS'ing is very clearly a tactic that violates the first amendment.
I don't follow this, much less find it "very clear." DDOSing is a crime and the prevention of it is a service provided by a third party. It's not a free speech issue.
Furthermore, you're really blaming the victim in your analysis of Charlottesville.