Home / General / Why Does the Right Want to Silence Free Speech?

Why Does the Right Want to Silence Free Speech?


Shorter Ann Althouse: “Political protest should be stamped out by the state if it offends my exceedingly delicate aesthetic sensibilities.”

Alas, she makes no attempt to square this position with her recent arguments that principles of “free speech” mean that conservative commentators should have permanent vested rights to Fox News sinecures. Well, “IOKIYAR” is a kind of principle, I guess.

…lots of good comments. To make my point clear, the silly hypothetical that Althouse and her husband are so inexplicably proud of has two obvious defects — hence, the viewpoint discrimination “problem” vanishes when we abandon her faulty premises. First, as with many slippery slope arguments, the empirical assumptions are implausible; I think it’s highly unlikely that similar protests will occur with significant frequency. But as the shorter implies, we don’t even need to address the empirical issue, because the alleged harms of her far-fetched worst-case scenario are stupefyingly trivial: “The Capitol has for years and years been a solemn place. For 25 years, I have brought visitors there and walked slowly through the beautiful spaces looking at the different colored and patterned marble on the walls and gazing with awe up into the dome.” So what? Between “speech” and “allowing the capitol to be a sufficiently sterile prop for Ann Althouse’s guided tours” I’ll choose the former, thanks.

For further reading, I recommend William Douglas’s classic dissent in Adderly v. Florida.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • joe from Lowell

    Ann Althouse?

    Punching below your class, Scott.

    • Boxwine Billy

      Ann would kill wimp Scott in a Merlot-athon…

      • redrob

        I believe that it is properly called a “merlothon”.

      • DrDick

        That is why we call her the “merlotnator.”

  • booferama

    I for one welcome our Althousian commentariat overlords.

  • Rarely Posts

    I’m steadily learning not to read the linked material because it hurts my brain. It’s passing strange to read a post about whether or not the Government’s treatment of a group of protesters in a specific space violates the First Amendment without any discussion of the relevant statutes, regulations, policies, or other sources of law governing that space. I have a thought: look to the laws governing that location, and determine if they forbid anything occurring. If so, consider the free-speech implications of their application. If not, consider whether such laws should be passed.

    • Rarely Posts

      Also, just to follow up: “The Capitol has for years and years been a solemn place. For 25 years, I have brought visitors there and walked slowly through the beautiful spaces looking at the different colored and patterned marble on the walls and gazing with awe up into the dome.”

      Personally, I love me some beautiful architecture and solemn locations. My recommendation: go to a museum, a courthouse, a Cathedral, a Church, a botanical garden, or an aquarium. Go to a wilderness area. I don’t think that the Government should turn every public location with beautiful architecture to a non-free-speech zone. Moreover, given the nature of legislators, I don’t think most locations that house them should be viewed as too “solemn” or sacred for loud, confrontational speech. Finally, beautiful architecture and noise and bustle often go well together: Union Station, Penn Station, etc.

      • Warren Terra

        That’s an incredible argument. I’ve got to say, the Roman Forum is probably a lot easier to appreciate now that it isn’t busy with commerce and the governmental business of the Roman electorate. The Coliseum really is much more picturesque without all those circuses in it. And it must have been just impossible to see and appreciate the Lincoln Memorial properly during the 1963 March On Washington. Isn’t it terrible when human life and public speech gets in the way of the monumental architecture?

      • Delurking

        This bit got to me too. Because, apparently, democracy is a museum?

        Well, it will be if the Right has its way, II guess.

        • Hogan

          Exactly. Our democratic freedoms are too fragile and precious ever to be used, so we must keep them safe in heavily guarded plexiglass cases so that tourists and schoolchildren may come and admire them from time to time. As long as they shut up and stay in a straight line.

        • joe from Lowell

          Ann Althouse wants democracy to be the equivalent of the plastic-covered front parlor in an old lady’s house.

          Walk on the newspapers, please. I’ll get you a folding chair.

          • hv

            If you disagree with what the government does, you are welcome to assemble to sign one petition for redress of grievances. Then, please disperse.

      • Scott Lemieux

        “The Capitol has for years and years been a solemn place. For 25 years, I have brought visitors there and walked slowly through the beautiful spaces looking at the different colored and patterned marble on the walls and gazing with awe up into the dome.”

        Yep, that’s the key passage. It’s a remarkable justification for abridging political protest: the protest might hypothetically prevent the capitol building from being used as a prop for tourists in the future.

        • joe from Lowell

          I hereby coin the phrase “Potemkin Legislature.”

      • timb

        not only that, but solemn is a place where lobbyists are busy treating elected representatives like cheap whores. Call me cynical, but All doesn’t seem to mind that.

      • guy in the capitol

        i am from madison. i have seen the fucking capitol more than a million times. it has never been as beautiful as it was these last two weeks. these guys are not allowed to make every single thing ayn rand thinks about architecture into united states law.

        • Delurking

          Now this is an excellent point. Which holds more beauty, a monument to democracy or the thing itself?

          Notice which Mr. And Mrs. Alehouse are spending all their energy and time on.

        • joe from Lowell

          Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap.

          Right you are.

      • My Brother got married in the rotunda. It wasn’t solemn at all. In fact, we may have had a drink beforehand.

        There was kissing and everything.

        • Malaclypse

          Yea, but given that your brother is undead, wasn’t it all after hours?

          • You have zombies confused with vampires.

            But anyway, Imma only zombizzle in the family.

    • Pooh

      The amazing thing (well, not really amazing anymore, since this show has been around long enough to enter syndication) is the person NOT addressing these legal niceties is a professor of law!

      • hv

        Yes, it is entirely reasonably for her personal trollservant, Meade, not to be able to recognize the legal terms of art that Mr. Lemieux is using…

        … but surely when Meade mentions at the dinner table the liberal scalps he collected that day, Ms. Althouse should recognize these terms and provide a tender and loving educational moment for Meade.

        Apparently not! Providing Meade with the basic concepts here is left to strange legal blogs.

        • Spokane Moderate

          How do we know she wrote it?

          • gocart mozart

            Her sentence structure and reasoning are strikingly similar to that of Robin of Berkley which is a bit suspicious and disconcerting I must admit. Can Meade produce the long form version of her post for us and if not, why not.

  • Guest

    Yeah, Althouse just isn’t worth engaging. You may as well argue religion with Shirley Phelps-Roper. Who gives a f*ck what she thinks?

    • dave3544


  • LosGatosCA

    It can’t become an all-purpose free-speech forum.

    Because, because, because. . .

    Then we’d have all sorts of people free-speechifying and that just won’t do. No, not at all. Democracy is only for the well ordered, well attired, and well funded please. I thought we settled all this when the Supreme Court appointed Bush to be president.

    Now everyone go home, have some cake, and assume your proper roles as the ‘little people’ doing the bidding of the moneyed class. Trust me, you’ll feel much better if you just let this free speeching thing pass. It will only get you upset if you let it go on. And you know how mommy doesn’t like it when you get upset.

    • Scott Lemieux

      And if you contrast this to the ludicrously broad principles of “free speech” she demands of the left it’s even funnier.

    • BigHank53

      Honestly, where better to have an all-purpose free-speech forum?

    • Hogan

      They came in here and trashed the place. And it isn’t their place.

      • charles pierce

        That’s a nice pull there.

        • Scott Lemieux

          Yup, Althouse is pretty much the Broder of the blogosphere, although not quite as deep. More the Sally Quinn, I guess.

      • guy in the capitol

        the citizens of the state own the state capitol building and will prove it publicly until you admit that it is true. i have a right to go to watch the state assembly debate whenever the state assembly is debating. I can bring friends too.

        • Furious Jorge

          You do recognize the source and context of the sentence Hogan is quoting, right?

          • Howlin Wolfe

            Yes, the aforementioned Sally Quinn.

  • DrDick

    Now, now, Scott, that really is not fair. She does not actually want to stamp out free speech. She just wants to stamp out your free speech. She enthusiastically endorses unlimited free speech (up to and including calling for the assassination of public officials) for herself and those she agrees with.

  • senseless

    • DrDick

      Sort of defines Althouse.

  • Greg

    As a capitol employee, I can tell you that, pursuant to the state’s open meeting laws, the Capitol must be held open if there is business being conducted therein. Since the protests started there has always been business being conducted, whether it was the Democrats’ 140 hour listening session on the bill, or the 63 hour Assembly session. I believe Friday and Saturday night has been the only exception to that policy, where the building remained open, despite no business being conducted there.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Yes, but you’re being too practical — what if this protest creates permanent future protests? Sure, it might not interfere with state business, but someone’s sense of decorum might be offended. Why, a man might wear shorts inside the capitol building! These protests much be crushed by the state immediately.

      • Modulo Myself

        It’s like Iraq–how do we know that these shorts may not be shorts of viewpoint discrimination? Can we afford not to act now?

        • gocart mozart

          We shouldn’t have to wait until a mushroom cloud of viewpoint discrimination forms above the capital.

      • guy in the capitol

        they seriously want to committ their political future to the idea of forming radical right wing cells to place anyone violating a local noise ordinance under citizens arrest. thanks for fighting for smaller government guys.

      • I believe there should be a permanent zombie protest inside the Madison State Capitol.

        Except during Christmas, when we give way for a Christian zombie.

        There, I said it and I feel better for it.

  • efgoldman

    Law professor.
    Law professor.
    Federal judge.

    It is to weep.

    • inwicapcity

      no one who gave a flying shit about UW would want to put it in the hands of the people Walker is.

      The governor has made it clear that he intends to pass every line of every bill in his entire legislative agenda. He is trying to outlaw one of the two political parties in Wisconsin. If you support him you are 100% pot-committed.

      If there is a single thing you know about Scott Walker that gives you any pause, how can you support him? If there isn’t, how are you even reading a webpage?

  • davenoon

    Althouse has pretty much put on the clown nose as a full time accessory. Her viewpoint discrimination nonsense is, of course, being accompanied by her even sillier campaign to enforce a cone of silence around the war memorial inside the capitol — the videos she and Meade have made are a hilarious combination of concern trolling and die-cast wingnut outrage that anyone would sneeze in its vicinity.

    In the first case, she’s making arguments based on non-existent evidence; in the second, she’s ginning up outrage over non-existent rules of etiquette.

    • timb

      Without ginned-up victimhood from imagined slights, how can a “conservative” tell he/she is a conservative? Historically, it’s one of the more popular movements with an appeal based upon fear and resentment.

    • Malaclypse

      the videos she and Meade have made

      Links? I can’t imagine wanting to watch, but I am disturbingly curious.

      • davenoon

        Oh, god — just go to her site, if you can manage it. There’s one from the other day, and another from today or yesterday. You really only need to see the first two minutes to get the point.

        • guy in the capitol

          at some point they can only aggregate as much out of context stuff to make into fake news. there are videos all over youtube of the protesters spontaneously busting out “thank you” chants whenever they see a law enforcement officer.

          we are better citizens than they are. I have personally stayed up until 5 in the morning watching the bill be debated on live tv and waiting in a half hour line to join the gallery. even the state repubs have admitted that the gallery has never been that full.

          we are better people than they are. we are cleaning up after ourselves in real time. we are doing everything for the world that they refuse to do for it.

          althouse is one person. the internet is everyone. the real story is a couple clicks away at all times.

      • Scott Lemieux

        No links please; this is a family website.

    • Holden Pattern

      Right. Because the ONE thing that American soldiers have fought and died for was the establishment of free speech zones ringed by barbed wire and armed National Guard members, and far far from any place where actual politicians might see the speakers.

  • timb

    Anyone interested in calling her bluff vis a vis the Tea Party? As an aside, I enjoy the fact that she assumes her populist Tea Party of little guys and gals is the diametric opposite of labor union protesters. If so, can we just stop calling them populists, since siding with corporate management is NOT a sign of populism.

    More to the point, I’m willing to risk the idea that the Tea Partiers would ever be able to 70,000 or 100,000 protesters to Madison. I’m thinking they might draw 20,000 if they head-lined a Tea Party rally with Jesus, Jefferson, and Limbaugh…..2 guys who lived around slaves and one who thinks it’s not a bad idea.

    • inwicapcity

      tea partiers of the world, please show up in all your populist glory at every wisconsin solidarity and us uncut protest in the country.

      We want to talk, bros.

  • SeanH

    Look. Meade. Obviously we’re all very dense here, so why don’t you do what we’ve asked you to do a couple of times and explain what would be so bad about future protests being allowed.

    I mean, the “viewpoint discrimination” you keep talking about is only an issue if future protests are disallowed, right? And as lots of us are said, we’re happy with future protests being allowed. And whenever that gets said, you just kind of roll your eyes and insist that the state “will not be able to treat other groups the same”. Why not?

    Althouse’s killer hypothetical you keep touting:

    At Christmastime, there is a big tree in the rotunda. The Freedom from Religion Foundation doesn’t like that. This week’s anti-Scott Walker people are banging on drywall buckets and chanting “This is what democracy looks like.” How about a hundred atheists in the rotunda for a week in December banging on buckets and chanting “This is what stupidity looks like”? (Okay, there’s a conlaw exam for you. Submit your answers and I’ll grade.)

    So the fuck what? I mean, obviously, those hypothetical atheists would be dicks (and I say this as an atheist), but I don’t see why these guys have to be bum-rushed out as a matter of urgency. Moreover, is this really the genius argument she’s come up with: tolerating free speech means tolerating upsetting/controversial speech? Are we all supposed to be stunned into silence by this revelation? And this hypothetical still doesn’t answer our question: why does Althouse think this would be an intolerable outcome?

    Once more, with feeling: What would be so bad about allowing protest in the Capitol building?

    • DrDick

      It would not be moderate and seemly and thus would offend Prof. Outhouse’s ever so delicate sensibilities (which are somehow unfazed by armed protesters showing up at opposition political events and blatant calls for political violence as long as the targets are liberals).

    • Scott Lemieux

      Thank you. The stuff above about people Meade disagrees with being ‘cult members” gives away the show — it’s pure projection.

      • hv

        And the rich union bosses. How shadowy! How dramatic!

        • DrDick

          As opposed to billionaire rentiers with long a history of fronting astroturf groups to further their far right agenda as well as a couple of bought and paid for Supreme Court Justices.

          • Pooh

            Hey, at least they’re up front about what they’re after, unlike those pesky people protesting the elimination of their own right to organize!

      • inwicapcity

        I am a member of the cult of people who disapprove of selling state of wisconsin power plants with no bid contracts and I demand that the other side stop pretending I haven’t read the bill.

        How much wiseye have any of these idiots watched? I was listening to assembly debate live at 5am last week. If something doesn’t make sense to me, I can just ask any teacher in the state. We know everything there is to know about the bill and its supporters collectively know nothing.

        a cult is people who are willing to believe an idea while knowing nothing about it.

        I am a member of the anti-cult of people who refuse to allow the governor to fire our prison guards and replace them with wackenhut like he did when he was milwaukee county exec.

    • guy in the capitol

      if they let us stay, someone might order us another pizza from antarctica.

      • guy in the capitol

        read the facebook group voices from madison. try to spot the union thugs, terrorists, commies under the pillow, and fema concentration camp conspirators. when will they just admit that a) we’re right and b) we mean them no harm?

      • Awesome.

    • Nevermind future protests… Can Mr Althouse show evidence that any viewpoint is currently being treated differently from the others? When the doors are open, can union and union-buster not go inside? When they kick folks out, are they asking people which side they support before determining who must leave and who can stay?

      I’m all for free speech and future protest (even of folks with whom I’ll likely disagree), but we don’t even need to hypothesize/guess about the future. A real world example is before us all as we speak, and there is no evidence of viewpoint discrimination. When protesters are allowed in, their allowed in, regardless of viewpoint. When folks is locked out, they’re locked out regardless of viewpoint (and even if they’re self-important husbands of bloggers, rather than “sheep.”) There is no viewpoint discrimination.

      • their?

        (I’m gonna hear it from le Donalde for that one… He lurves him those spelling errors, both those he catches when made by enemies–proof of stupidity, natch, and those made by hisself–just typos, or the failure of spellcheck)

        Please read as “they are,” or if you prefer, “they’re”


  • Epicurus

    Anyone who can defend Outhouse’s drivel is drinking from a bigger box of wine than she is. Amazing that Meade keeps asking you to answer a logically fallacious premise. The answer is “rephrase your question or go away.”

    • Mann Malthose

      I suspect second-box drinking.

  • The “I demand you address this hypothetical” style of argument is the douchiest style of argument of them all.

    • Malaclypse

      the douchiest style of argument of them all.

      You say this because Donalde has been strangely silent around here, laterly.

      • Hogan

        “Oh, I’m sorry, this is Abuse. You want room 12A, just along the corridor.”

    • hv

      Yes, great point! At the very least there should be an opt-out option. If Meade can’t describe the argumentative impact of failing to answer a scenario, the rest of us may safely conclude such impact does not exist.

      I rarely believe these assertions that an opt-out always carries the stakes of losing every aspect of every argument, everywhere and everywhen, while simultaneously admitting bad intent and covering your ass, etc.

      A certain sign of troll-douchery.

    • Scott Lemieux

      And it’s even douchier when the asinine hypothetical in question has in fact been addressed multiple times.

      • Hogan

        Meade: “Oh yeah? What would you say if right-wingers were camping out in the Capitol, huh?”

        Everyone: “Um, that would be fine / Yeah, I don’t see the problem / Sure, why not?”

        Meade: “Aha! So you’re refusing to answer my question!’

        • DrDick

          Pretty much sums up the whole thread.

          • The key point that y’all are missing is that there is only one answer to this question! Since you don’t provide the only possible answer, you clearly haven’t answered at all.

            (Ooo, or maybe that Meade already knows what your real answer is and it’s not the one you’ve given in this thread! SNEAKY!)

            Interestingly, that only possible answer also happens to prove (perhaps) Meade’s point!


            • Malaclypse

              Bijan has it. George Soros personally asked me to mess with Meade and refuse the real answer, because nothing is more important to the Revolution than messing with a troll on an LGM thread.

        • Woodrowfan

          good summary…

        • herr doktor bimler

          Ah, but you have missed the cleverest part of the argument — the part that makes it unanwerable — which is the stipulation, as part of the hypothetical, that the future protestors have found some way of protesting that you find unacceptable. You can’t expect Althouse and Meade to be specific; that’s not how stipulations work.

    • herr doktor bimler

      I’m sure “Answer that hypothetical question!!” is a winning gambit in the courtroom.

  • MAJeff

    As a faggot, only have to say that I’d rather be a cocksucker than a Kochsucker.

    • DrDick

      Me, too, and I’m not even gay.

  • The recurring nightmare of law students nationwide is waking up to Ann Althouse as your Con Law professor.

    • DrDick

      Or worse yet, waking up to Ann Althouse (that one is going to give me nightmares for a week).

    • Pooh

      Funny thing is, one of my ConLaw professors at another great midwestern institute of legal learning was sort of the liberal equivalent of Ms. Althouse, (to the point where the largely libral student body engaged in much rolling of eyes and preparing for exams by asking how to best support the doctrinaire leftist outcome of a hypothetical) though she at least had the good sense to not write a blog…

  • Stiv Bator

    As an armchair shrink and professional authority on all internet traditions,
    I can say althouse has created her own online community/universe with her blog, and has attracted loyal middle aged males, all with right wing /libertario beliefs. This relationship has, over the years, changed her thinking on politics, she’s moved way over into tea party ville.

    I could give her credit and say shes molded her blog in a seo/huffington style, in that she posts stuff to attract her loyal fans.

  • R. Porrofatto

    …having let themselves be sucked into a cult-like movement to essentially protect rich union bosses and disrupt our democratic republican process of self-government.

    Well there you have it. For all the bleating about viewpoint discrimination and hypothetical atheists, the only actual viewpoint discriminatin’ here is by Mr. and Mrs. Althouse. The folks here are basically saying if Americans for Prosperity can get 100,000 protestors to the Capitol then why the hell not? (That’s only about 99,700 shy of what they actually got to demonstrate at Madison’s Capitol building but who’s counting?) Who would discriminate against them? Scott Walker? Scott Lemieux? Would a roving duo of guerilla videographers bust their chops or look the other way thanks to a shared viewpoint?

    • guy in the capitol

      No, she’s right. there is a hidden brainwashing booth inside the capitol building. please come and find it tea partiers. have some ian’s and talk with us. find the most reasonable person you can, go to the nearest bar and talk about sb11.

      I have bet my future that sb11 is a bad bill. my new volunteer job is convincing everyone in the state that is true. If you disagree, find me and convince me otherwise.

      My address is “state capitol building, Madison, WI”. I am a citizen of the city of Madison, the state of Wisconsin, and the United States of America. I have paid tens of thousands of dollars in taxes in my life, and I’d like to be able to talk to my governor please.

      I won’t stop talking to everyone in the state until they can agree to remove one piece of non-fiscal legislation from one budget bill that it doesn’t even belong in in the first place.

      —anyone currently in the capitol can edit this and post it anywhere. I have to go, be back with a new name later.

      • 1guy in the capitol

        I demand Scott Walker’s birth certificate.

        • Pooh

          I think I’ve seen a copy, but the kerning was off.

          • Normally, this is where we would ask to see DNA evidence that Walker is a human, but considering his kattywampus ears, goofy eyes, and sneery voice, I don’t think anyone imagines an android factory, or lizard concealment artist, who would let that kind of crappy work go.

  • charles pierce

    What exactly does la Althouse teach in that law school?

    • Malaclypse

      Binge drinking.

      • Pooh

        That’s usually taken as an independent study.

    • DrDick

      Uncritical thinking.

      • Uncritical drinking.

        • NBarnes

          Also usually independent study. A lot of bad beer gets drunk at law school.

          • Pooh

            Most of the beer I drank was absolutely critical.

    • Mann Malthose

      Typing in stereo.

  • Woodrowfan

    just for Ann, because we care…


  • B^4

    This bit was cute:

    I think the Republicans are simply refraining from confrontation and waiting for the protesters to get tired and leave or — on their own — to upset the ordinary people around the state.

    Shit, lady, these are the ordinary people around the state.

    • papa zita

      Ah, using “ordinary people” in the Nixonian “silent majority” sense. The truth value may be nil, but her points must be made!

      Or, as I like to put it, Wine Box Annie strikes (only not in the labor way) again.

  • SeanH

    For further reading, I recommend William Douglas’s classic dissent in Adderly v. Florida.

    And if Meade keeps insisting that nobody here has answered Althouse’s point, I refer him to the reply in Arkell v. Pressdram.

    • B^4

      I’d refer him to Head v. Desk myself!

      • Or the opening question of O’Neal v Bryant (2006).

  • Oh come now, be fair.

    It is obvious that the State will never be able to accommodate 100,000 Teabaggers in a similar week-long demonstration.

    There IS no such thing as 100,000 Teabaggers.

    Besides, Where would they all charge their Rascals?

    • papa zita

      If they hauled in all the teabaggers from every part of the nation (with many paid-by-Koch protesters and accidentally adding in real teabaggers – the original meaning of the word, mind you), they might get up to 100,000. Of course, more than half the crowd would be teabagging and not protesting.

  • Pooh

    In before the fact that the building wasn’t cleared tonight is used as proof of…something or other.

  • Spengler Dampniche

    I’d just like to extend a laurel and hearty handshake to Meade for hanging in on these comments long, long after the poopy diaper smell had reached all corners of the room.

  • You sound terribly uninformed about the dimension of the occupation of the Capitol

    “Occupation”. I like that. It sounds so 60sish and gets all the hippie-punching glands going, doesn’t it?

    For an occupation, it is a uniquely Wisconsin one; with the “occupiers” helping to clean up, working with the police on safety and security issues, and catered by pizza places and germanic grandmas.

    Oh, yeah, and wearing foam cheese wedges on their heads. Aggressive headgear, that is.

    • rea

      Why, these people just barged in and started engaging in political debate! In the Capitol, of all places–everyone knows you can’t have a political debate in the Capitol! Who do these people think they are, occupying the People’s House?

  • jim

    AA fears the rise of a protestocracy?

    Amen! One drum-circle fillibuster alone would implicitly generate demand for an amendment to the laws around justifiable manslaughter.


    • Spokane Moderate


      Actually… I’ll give her that one.

  • Pingback: And the Crackdown Begins : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • My delicate sensibilities were offended by the fat crackers on their Hoverounds, ugly-ing up the Washington Mall, littering and carrying around their racist and misspelled signs.

    That’s what’s got Ann so upset isn’t it? The Wisconsin protesters aren’t illiterate and don’t yell at people with Parkinsons. Oh, come on. I’m getting warm, aren’t I?

  • markg

    And that “solemn place” for 25 years is sanctimonious bullshit too. During that time there have been lots of sleepover protests, and for a period of several years homeless people were permitted to spend their days and nights in the public space there as well.

  • Pingback: But What About the Tours? : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Pingback: Court Properly Upholds First Amendment Rights of Hateful Speakers : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Pingback: Illegal Suppressor of Free Speech of the Day : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

It is main inner container footer text