Newt Gingrich: Glitter bombing is clearly assault

[Playinghardball]

Source: Raw Story
By Eric W. Dolan

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is no fan of a tactic that has come to be known as "glitter bombing." In May, he became the first 2012 presidential candidate to be doused with sparkly rainbow confetti for his opposition to same sex marriage.

At the time, he brushed off the incident, saying, "It's nice to live in a free country." But now he doesn't view the act is harmless prank.

“Glitter bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such,” Gingrich said in an e-mail to the New York Times.

"When someone reaches into a bag and throws something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains permanently or something that can blind you? People have every right to their beliefs but no right to assault others.”

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R) and former Minnosota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) were also targets of glitter bombs in June.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/28/newt-gingrich-glitter-bombing-is-clearly-assault/

[SavWriter]

1. Come on Newt

We just want you to be the shining example to the rest of the f-ing Right Wingers.

[MineralMan]

2. No, Newt, it's free speech.

The SCOTUS has ruled a number of times that actions can be the equivalent of speech, and are protected. Think of the flag-burning cases.

No harm intended or done, no assault. Wear your glitter constitutionally.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. + 1

[former9thward]

6. No its not free speech. Legally it is assault.

If someone tried that with Obama the SS would probably shoot them.

[Politicub]

7. What if someone throws confetti on you? Or you get a couple of streamers in your

hair during a parade?

Is that an assault too?

:eyes:

[former9thward]

9. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful,

or offensive contact. Battery is where contact is made. There needs to be intent by the other person of imminent or offensive contact. These definitions are tweaked around a little depending on what state you are in. In the examples you give there probably would not be intent by the perpetrator depending on the exact circumstances so they would not fit. If you throw a pie or something else on someone who is speaking there clearly is intent and you are guilty.

[Warpy]

3. Poor baby is finding out how tough that stuff is to get rid of

It clings to hair follicles and hides in seams.

There's a reason I refuse to have it in the house.

[Kerrytravelers]

4. And I think homophobia is an assault on human rights.

Let's call a truce. You get out of the way of folks having basic civil rights and no one will sprinkle you with glitter.


Why are these republicans always whining and crying so much? Grow up. Toddlers whine.

[Initech]

8. I always love when the GOP calls us whiners but they complain more than any group on the planet.

[WingDinger]

10. I fully agree with him. And yet, would pie many. There would be a healthy fear, till you knew it

was nontoxic. What with CEOs swiggin fracking fluid and such. Throwing anything on someone, could get you in trouble. Assualt is when they think they have the evidence. And it is compelling. Otherwise it would get plead down to mischief, or ?

[spanone]

11. who?

[hobbit709]

12. What cheese would you like with that whine, Mr. Gingrich?