This lackwit drivel.
This is horrifying if you believe in the first amendment. https://t.co/Bz8rydSirs
— PoliticsGirl (@IAmPoliticsGirl)
Is Joe Huffman’s no-bull blast of plain common sense.
Your “horrifying if you believe in the First Amendment” drivel is the exact cognitive blind spot these cells exploit…weaponizing free speech as a get-out-of-consequences card for those who piss on it with bullets and bombs.
Brandenburg v. Ohio carved it out decades ago:
protected speech stops cold at incitement to imminent lawless action that actually happens. They didn’t just talk; they executed.
The Constitution doesn’t shield arsonists, shooters, or terror enablers any more than it shields Al-Qaeda sympathizers handing out bomb manuals.
This verdict isn’t chilling dissent; it’s lethal accountability, the kind that deters the next cell of ideologically poisoned fuckwits from turning public facilities into kill zones.
So spare me your performative horror, you fucking idiot.
The jury saw the pathology for what it was. The FBI built the case on it. And the law cut them down.
Cry harder, sweetheart.
LHGrey™️ @grey4626
Posted on X, March 14, 2026
With this Parthian shot tacked on for good measure.
It is interesting this person believes the First Amendment protects the destruction of government property and shooting a police officer with an AR-15. They must have crap for brains. With that broad of scope for the First Amendment, just imagine what the Second Amendment must protect. Why, it must protect the use of artillery dropping HE on the U.S. Capital or some such thing.
Hey, I’m okay with that interpretation, myself.
(Via Sarah Hoyt)












- Entries
I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand.
Their violence is speech.
Your speech is violence.
Got it now?
Funny how that works…