These aren't strawman arguments. These are legitimate questions.
You've been attempting to shut down each of my questions claiming logical fallacies, but the questions I've been asking are the ones which will be brought up by a defense team and ones that I want to legitimately know the answer to. You appear to be much more familiar with these situations; can you enlighten me on the details so I won't make the same kinds of mistakes again?
These aren't strawman arguments.
They are. You're the one claiming that destroying documents is free speech. It's not.
Free "speech" isn't freedom to "destroy" documents provided by the government for a defined purpose.
Show me videos of other politicians who have been doing the same thing (on purpose), like she did.
It was a premeditated provocation caused by her TDS, a demonstration of how powerful she thinks she is.
You can clearly see that she was getting impatient with the speech to end, and when it did, she immediately grabbed the documents and tore them up.
can you enlighten me on the details so I won't make the same kinds of mistakes again?
Passive aggressive sarcasm
I can't provide video for you of other politicians doing the same thing. But destruction of symbols and objects has been shown to be free speech in at least one other specific area: burning the American flag.
The Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is considered free speech (United States v. Eichman) so why can't the destruction of something else, say a speech, be considered a 1st amendment protest?
If you're going to call that another strawman, I can't stop you. But there's another hitch in prosecuting Pelosi; the document wasn't filed with a clerk/officer of the court as far as I can tell. That means it wasn't a government record, just a piece of paper that Trump gave her. It had his speech on it, but it wasn't an official document.
Under the text of the statute, it has to be an official document filed with either a clerk or officer of the court.
But destruction of symbols and objects has been shown to be free speech in at least one other specific area: burning the American flag.
As long as these symbols and objects are your properties, you can do whatever you want with it.
That means it wasn't a government record, just a piece of paper that Trump gave her.
If you can provide evidences that he actually gave her these documents (to troll her, and thus explains why she went full retard at the end of the speech), I'll gladly apologize.
(post is archived)