YOU COULD SAY I AM DYING TO MEET THEM, OR YOU COULD SAY THAT THEY WILL JUST DIE WHEN THEY MEET ME!!
IF THEY WERE REALLY MY CAPTIVES, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE JUST KILLED THEM, THEN ELENA DUARTE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON TO BE SUCH A BITCH, AND LIE TO THE PEOPLE, AND MISAPPLY THE LAWS, TORTURE ME, MORE THEN ONCE, WHILE THEY LOOK AT THEMSELVES AND THEIR HOUSES.
FEELING HARRASED? HAVING A NIGHTMARE? GIT OVER IT! NOBODY IS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE HERE, EXCEPT ME. AND YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE, ANYTIME! UNLIKE I WAS, FOR MANY, MANY ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL YEARS.
Since you are now an admitted Captive of mine, I am going to play a game with you called, "I am going to take you out."
In this game I can do anything I want to you, short of death,just 'cause you are now my captive. In other words you have "no" jurisdiction. So you can't ever challenge me. Just 'cause I say so!No other authority is needed. Woot!
But don't forget, I reserved the right to kill you when the game began. So don't worry about when it will happen, or where. Just be sure it will be soon, and sudden. But the way I am going to kill you shall be slow, and painful. And I shall torture you first. Trust me when I say I will laugh while I do it.
You will probably beg for me to finish the wasted, pathetic, little life God gave you.
He is in charge! Watch out. Be sure to look under your bed, in the closets, and the dark shadows!! Time to get your game face on!!
"Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest.
Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. See, e. g., Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971). While this Court has recognized that [state] government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue, e. g., Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970), we have at the same time consistently stressed that "we are often `captives'outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech." Id., at 738. The ability of state government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections."The ability of Federal government, consonant with the Constitution, to take down speech and discourse is none.
