All indications from Hercules56's posts are that it is not to be stopped before it happens. You allow the crime to take place and then arrest and prosecute.
If you truly believe in Freedom of Speech, everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt that they can behave themselves. What you are talking about is called Prior Restraint and in the USA it is mostly illegal.
They do exactly as you say here. You just don't like the law that people are arrested for
They made exclusion zones to mitigate the need for a hundred cops and a caravan of paddy wagons that they would need at every "exercise of free speech"
Again with the "all".
What radius for harassing women do you find appropriate? You've said spitting distance (15'), which you seem to think makes you impervious to violence (and I have some very bad physics news for you on that count). Do you have a preferred proximity for harassing women, or do you just want to make sure that the women themselves have to be subjected to your 'speech' where they have to hear it?
And how do they enforce the exclusion zone? Via Teams or WhatsApp?
I truly do not believe in unrestricted free speech. I believe that free speech must be balanced against the rights of others.
You have arms that can extend beyond 15'?????
By that reasoning, guns and drugs should be allowed within 15 feet of a school playground. Don't want to priorly restrain those innocent coked-up gun toters, amirite?If you truly believe in Freedom of Speech, everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt that they can behave themselves. What you are talking about is called Prior Restraint and in the USA it is mostly illegal.
Prior restraint - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
But I dont mind a reasonable exclusion zone of say 15' for all persons just in case.
It is not harassment to say "don't abort" or to pray silently.
I guess we can add 'projectiles' to the concepts you are wrestling with.
Protecting children seems to be a whole different animal, according to the law. I only know about such laws in
AMERICA.
Is this an attempt at humour? Needs work but you may actually be learning a little something from this thread.
So arrest the guy tossing his projectile.
...we went over that already.
My point is very ◊◊◊◊ ing valid.
You. You are clearly calling for harassment to be allowed, and have categorised both harassment and murder in the same way, as activities that are illegal and against which the law should be enforced in the same way by being "prosecuted to the greatest extent possible". You don't seem to be interested in preventation.
"So arrest the gunman that shot the schoolkids"
Or make a reasonable effort to prevent innocent people from being struck by a projectile.
By banning projectiles???
If you truly believe in Freedom of Speech, everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt that they can behave themselves. What you are talking about is called Prior Restraint and in the USA it is mostly illegal.
Prior restraint - Wikipedia
But I dont mind a reasonable exclusion zone of say 15' for all persons just in case.