mtswIf conservative radicals who've stolen our courts were actually "originalists" they would take a very dim view of the government arresting people for no reason. "You cannot arrest someone without a good reason" is like the literal oldest thing in Common Law. But instead the doctrine is the nonsensical Qualified Immunity of "cops can do whatever they want to with no consequences." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-ohio-mans-bid-sue-police-arrest-facebook-parody-rcna70435
Like I'm not a lawyer but I don't even see what this has to do with the First Amendment one way or another. "The cops physically took my body and placed it in jail on a false and legally batshit basis because they were mad at me" like that seems like it's plenty?
Why is there a burden of proof on this guy to prove that his post was protected speech? Why should the burden of proof be on a citizen to prove the cops shouldn't be allowed to arrest him on trumped up charges? What are we even doing here
Jason Petersen (he)@mtsw we don’t believe in the fourth or eighth amendment and we haven’t in some time