Summary
A GOP town hall in Idaho turned violent when private security, LEAR Asset Management, forcibly removed Teresa Borrenpohl for speaking out.
The incident escalated after Borrenpohl questioned a panelist’s anti-abortion stance, leading to her being dragged out by unmarked security. Sheriff Norris, present but in plainclothes, did not intervene initially.
LEAR, known for aggressive tactics, was revealed to have been hired by the town hall organizers. Police later revoked LEAR’s city license and clarified that removing someone for speaking out is unlawful.
The incident shows rising tensions and the blurring lines between political events and private security enforcement in conservative areas.
Let me help you out there.
The consequences in this statement will exclude stuff like imprisonment or illegal actions, as it would otherwise not constitute free speech. What is meant by consequences in that statement is social consequences, like being ignored, being “cancelled” or maybe being called names, like bigot.
For some reason people like to lament that “you aren’t allowed to say this bigoted thing anymore”. This statement rightly points out that you are, but people are also allowed to call you an asshole for doing it.
I literally referenced that in my comment.
The point is that the rhetoric is so poorly and foolishly phrased that it erodes the actual rights of the people.
It’s not foolishly phrased. The limits of the consequences are implicit by using “freedom of speech”. It feels more like you are just foolishly interpreting the statement. The statement doesn’t even pertain to the article in the post.
I’ve only ever seen it being used correctly to point out that speech having social consequences does not mean you don’t have freedom of speech. If someone says “oh woe is me, why can’t I say the n word anymore”, I don’t think going into a 30 minute tirade about the intricacies of freedom of speech is going to work out for you.