The term speech is very broadly defined in law. A purely physical act can be speech in a certain context. It does not have to literally involve an exchange of words.
Many protests may turn into riots, that does not suddenly mean that the people involved in the violence are no longer expressing an opinion.
How so? Could you elaborate?
Just to be clear, this is in no way intended as an endorsement of rioting.
Violence is not speech. Is punching a person in the face as having a conversation with him?
The term speech is very broadly defined in law. A purely physical act can be speech in a certain context. It does not have to literally involve an exchange of words.
Many protests may turn into riots, that does not suddenly mean that the people involved in the violence are no longer expressing an opinion.
17 replies →