You conveniently left out when I said "intent and result".
In any case I'm not talking about a court of law.
> The heckler is entitled to say "I think the speaker is a moron[...]
Now I know you're not arguing in good faith, since that speech does not in fact deny anybody else's speech. Making it completely off topic. Which is what I'm talking about and I think you know it.
You do not believe that screaming the same thing over and over, or just plain screaming, every time another person tries to say any word at all in their planned event, is anything but the intent of prior restraint.
Are there grey areas? Well, it's life, so of course.
But I do not believe for a second that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Blocking an event venue and using bullhorns and megaphone feedback is not some unsolved philosophical conundrum. Which of course you know.
> Pretending that you're able to magically differentiate someone's intent
This is a pure straw man argument. That's not was I said and you know it.
In any case I'm not talking about a court of law.
> The heckler is entitled to say "I think the speaker is a moron[...]
Now I know you're not arguing in good faith, since that speech does not in fact deny anybody else's speech. Making it completely off topic. Which is what I'm talking about and I think you know it.
You do not believe that screaming the same thing over and over, or just plain screaming, every time another person tries to say any word at all in their planned event, is anything but the intent of prior restraint.
Are there grey areas? Well, it's life, so of course.
But I do not believe for a second that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Blocking an event venue and using bullhorns and megaphone feedback is not some unsolved philosophical conundrum. Which of course you know.
> Pretending that you're able to magically differentiate someone's intent
This is a pure straw man argument. That's not was I said and you know it.