It's freedom of speech, not freedom of actions, nor freedom from consequence.

[vakkotaur]

Governor Pawlenty suggested something that has some folks upset. He suggested that protesters who commit illegal acts should be required to pay for the cost of their arrest. I disagree, but not the way some do. Why limit it to protesters? Why not have all criminals pay for their arrest? That would, after all, be non-discriminatory.

Some are claiming this would be a violation of first amendment rights. Nonsense. Signs and bumper stickers would not be illegal. Attending rallies would not be illegal. Marching would not be illegal. Publishing would not be illegal. Speaking one's mind would not be illegal. Disrupting and interfering with other people's lives, however, would now have a price for the disrupter. As it is now, only those whose lives are disrupted pay for the misbehavior of the disrupters. Misusing law enforcement as a publicity tool is not free speech, but freeloading. And freeloading is not constitutionally protected.