I don’t think there’s much threat right now to the very core of First Amendment liberties, as shown by the tea partiers. However, as shown by police reaction to the G20 protesters, and the complete lack of a public response to that unjustified repression, political expression that is not at the very core of the First Amendment is, as a matter of fact, no longer protected.

Got it, and fair point about needing to focus limited resources.

Perhaps I was a little obscure in my point, so I’ll restate it. There’s only so much First Amendment to go around. The libertarians have stretched it out to cover the extremes of pornographic expression. As such, there’s not enough left to cover the extremes of political expression, or really anything that varies from our traditional notions of political expression. I don’t think there’s much threat right now to the very core of First Amendment liberties, as shown by the tea partiers. However, as shown by police reaction to the G20 protesters, and the complete lack of a public response to that unjustified repression, political expression that is not at the very core of the First Amendment is, as a matter of fact, no longer protected.

Boda,

I’m not sure what memos you’ve seen showing that the the tea parties were nefariously organized by corporatist theocrats (or whoever you think was behind it), but I ain’t seen a one. Until I do, I’ll continue to regard such baseless blithering as the bullshit ramblings of a bitter hack.

Aside from the actions of the ‘hero’ police, there is very little in the way of “violence and disorder” at protests in the US, at least not for the past 40 years or so. Protests might matter if they were.

There are no shortage of self-described “Libertarians” who are strangely excited about being useful idiots at GOP/K-Street/MSM stage-managed “tea parties” which are every bit as spontaneous and representative as a Columbus Day parade. They are not effecting policy, just a means of solidifying the GOP’s flagsucking/theocratic base for mid-terms. Obama is still carrying out Bush policy. Like birther lawsuits, they have had no influence.
Like the anti-Iraq war protests, that at the height of their popularity which were run by the Stalinists, the “tea party” dupes can’t really believe that politicians hang out in their offices on the weekends with binoculars reading their signs and acting accordingly?

If the Tea Party movement is intact and marching unperturbed, doesn’t that lend credence for the current libertarian argument, i.e., that an overzealous concern with the rights of G20 protesters has actually made the world safer for Tea Partiers? You very much had my attention for the first few paragraphs, but your argument fell in on itself at the end there.

Also, in his defense, Balko first covered this back in October.

The Founders in their wisdom realized that no man, or group of men, were capable, let a lone justified, in making that determination. So they crafted their founding document to protect all speech – whether you find it the quaint province of libertarians or not.