>I've said repeatedly in this thread that I do not think violent demonstrations are free speech. How many times do I have to say it?
>
>True. But what you did NOT say is whether or not you thought that the riots in Oregon were violent. Or whether or not you even thought that they were riots. Try answering the question that I asked.

Based on the article you posted, it sounds like the protest in Oregon was violent, or at least that some people at that protest were violent. There's not enough in the article to know whether that protest was a riot. (Not surprisingly, I don't take police characterization of it as a riot at face value.)

Tamar