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.

  • OwlHamster@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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.

    • DragonTypeWyvern
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      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.

      • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The phrase is eroded to you because you can’t understand it yet. Not to everyone. The actual rights of the people is to speak at town hall, not to puke hate speech from their phone out to a teen app for sharing your thoughts. You do understand that it is most likely that you will be cattle prod long before the people you hate, right?

      • OwlHamster@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        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.

      • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        You don’t have a Constitutional right to say the N word at your job, but you have a Constitutional right to ask your government questions.

        They’re not the same thing, as equally important as they are to you.

        • DragonTypeWyvern
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          I’m going to laugh when you people get sent to the work camps as the “consequences” of your speech while you’re too stubborn to admit that the rhetoric you use can have unintended consequences.