"protected expression" overlooks the sheer fact that enraging people isn’t wise.

And yet, you keep coming back here every day.

Peace officers — under common law — are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence.

Two things.

1. Please define “common law” as you understand it, so everyone is on the same page.
2. Police officers do have the right to stop imminent violence, but they must still act within the restraints of the law—which means silencing perfectly legal speech because someone might incidentally get angry enough to throw a punch at the speaker is a First Amendment lawsuit waiting to be filed.

even if the accusation leveled in your headline is true, though you soon back off it, but the obvious way is to remove the sign

Again: The sign is protected speech. What makes the person who put it up responsible for the reactions of others? The reactionaries are the ones who cannot control their tempers long enough to just keep walking by; if the reactionary throws a punch at the speaker, the speaker should not be punished for getting hit in the face. Doing so is little-to-no better than blaming a female rape victim for her own rape by saying she dressed like she wanted sex.

The First Amendment — which foreigners don’t even have written down anywhere — still isn’t absolute.

Another two things.

1. What the flying orange-and-blue blur do “foreigners” have to do with any of this?
2. Yes, thank you for telling us something we already know.

just wear the wrong color jersey into a pub where ardent fans of the local football club hang out. And DO NOT then call the police to protect you, but keep insisting in your right.

It is absolutely a person’s right to wear, say, a Jacksonville Jaguars jersey in the middle of a bar full of Carolina Panthers fans. If the Jaguars fan gets beaten up over their shirt, they should not be blamed for getting beaten up; it would be no better than blaming a woman for being raped because she was wearing a skimpy dress.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty

That is a standard for a court of law. I can think Kavanaugh is as guilty as Bill Cosby, but my opinion means nothing in terms of what can be proven in a court of law.

I’m all for a rapist being thrown into jail. But I could list a number of well-known cases where someone or a group of people were accused of RAPE, and it ended up being a LIE

Yes, false accusations hurt the credibility of real rape survivors with real accusations. The point of movements such as #MeToo, then, is to ensure that the real survivors can make their accusations without being brushed aside or ignored. The police should investigate all such accusations for as much evidence that either proves or disproves the story. “Trust but verify” is what is being called for, not “believe all women no matter what” (nor “never believe any other women because one woman lied”).

she should have called the police, then be taken to the hospital where evidence could have then been gathered

She probably “should” have done a lot of things…but I cannot imagine how many of them would have made her a perfect, unassailable, wholly credible victim to you. This is largely what your opinion boils down to: “Because she is not the perfect victim—for whatever reason(s)—she is at least a liar.”

This guy has also been through like 6 past FBI background checks over the years being a Federal Judge. Yet all that has been clean every time.

The FBI cannot generally find what they do not know to look for, and neither Kavanaugh nor his associates apparently let on that Dr. Ford might ever have been a “problem” for him at any point. If only Kavanaugh, Ford, and that friend of Kavanaugh’s knew about the (alleged) assault, how could the FBI have ever learned about it by interviewing Kavanaugh, who had every reason to lie to/mislead the FBI about it?

This woman doesn’t know what year it happened. Where it happened. When it happened.

And yet, she directly answered every question asked of her by the Senate to the best of her recollection, whereas Kavanaugh dodged and weaved on similar questions. Whether she can remember every exact detail some 40 years later does not make her story less credible; if anything, the fact that she willingly went before the Senate and answered all their questions says a lot about her credibility. A liar tends to avoid the possibility of being caught lying.

Do I believe she was assaulted? Absolutely; she has nothing to gain by lying about that. Do I believe Kavanaugh was the one who assaulted her? I believe it is possible—and even likely. Do I think Kavanaugh should be convicted of a crime based on everything we know and everything that can be proven? No. Do I think he deserves his spot on the Supreme Court? Hell no—but not for the sole reason of my thinking he likely assaulted Dr. Ford.

All the people she names were there have denied it happening or that he was ever there.

[citation needed]

This leftest don’t care about her or the rape IF it happened. They only care about Trump not getting his pick.

We can care about both. If Kavanaugh did assault Dr. Ford, he should not be a judge. If he did not assault her, he still should not be a judge based on the displays of anger and partisanship he put on display in his final hearing prior to his confirmation.

they hate Trump and anything he does and have non-stop been trying to stop anything and everything he does

Hey, the GOP did it with Obama. How long did Mitch McConnell hold up the Merrick Garland nomination, again?