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.
I can find , and . That's the best I've got; both of those articles talk to law professors, one from Yale and one from the University of Minnesota.
Thanks for the links, but I wouldn't use Reuters and AP as fact checkers. Their integrity is more than questionable, as they are run by pro-democrats.
(post is archived)