reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript documents a tense encounter between Speaker 0 and individuals who appear to be accompanying or representing law enforcement or a compliance team. Speaker 0 begins by challenging a prior online statement about the Jewish community, asserting a belief in freedom of speech. The responders acknowledge the claim but insist they must ensure there is no warrant and that they are within rights to proceed. The conversation shifts to a sign reading “no soliciting,” with Speaker 0 being told that what he is doing is basically soliciting and that he is not welcomed there. He is told to “stay off the lawn” and to leave, as the others indicate the property line and how to proceed. Speaker 0 presses back on the idea of warrants and the legality of their actions, insisting, “No. That’s why we’re,” and then highlighting the sign as evidence of their lack of welcome. The discourse reveals a confrontation over freedom of speech: Speaker 0 declares, “This is freedom of speech,” while the others respond by asserting boundaries and the illegitimacy of the intrusion in light of the no-soliciting sign. The scene is described as an example of consequences for online comments about the Jewish community, with the on-site visitors asserting that comments lead to an in-person response. Throughout, Speaker 0 frames the situation as a defense of free expression, repeatedly stating, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting. You understand that. Mhmm.” and “This is freedom of speech.” The others counter with procedural cautions about warrants and property rights, and they emphasize that the sign does not authorize the visitors to disregard the property boundaries, noting, “Sign that says no soliciting does not give you a right to my curtilage.” The exchange escalates into a back-and-forth about authority, with Speaker 0 disparaging the perceived influence of Israel, saying, “This is how much control Israel has over our country,” and claiming that the response he’s facing is a direct consequence of exercising online freedom of speech. The interaction culminates with the visitors continuing their stance on non-solicitation, and Speaker 0 signaling a ready exit, saying “Bye bye,” and reiterating the boundary with, “Freedom of speech.” The overall dynamics depict a confrontation where online remarks about a minority community are met with a door-to-door response framed as protecting boundaries under a no-soliciting rule, while the speaker asserts constitutional rights and critiques the legitimacy of the encounter.

Speaker 0 discusses being accused in DMs of turning their space into an Israeli Jew space, noting a poll they put up where listeners guess the Jewish proportion, with guesses around 50-99% Jewish. They acknowledge that Truth and they themselves are not Jewish, yet point out that a group making up 2% of America and 0.2% of the planet is “a lot of them up here at the moment.” They attempt a divided calculation on how many Jews are in the space today, suggesting 38.2% of Jews while only 2% Jews overall, calling the resulting discrepancy a 9.2 difference and labeling these patterns as antisemitic. They urge others not to listen to a particular person in their space who they allege is antisemitic. The speaker then accuses others of trying to “figure out who the Jews are,” and says “Nazis are,” claiming to be someone who researches how many Jews are in things. They reference Sarah, saying she dislikes when the speaker brings up facts, data, or discussions about JFK, questioning why it matters who killed JFK and arguing it doesn’t matter who did 9/11 or the USS attacks, and stating “What if it was a Jews? What does that change? Nothing.” There’s a call to mute others, and an accusation that the audience will mute the speaker. The speaker mentions posting their DNA and receiving death threats “literally from Jews almost daily,” remarking on its repetitiveness and rarity for a reel. They reference “the third reel you’re not allowed to talk about” and question why the media or politicians won’t discuss it. The speaker introduces themselves as Isaac and someone named Shane, and asks whether the reaction might be connected to “the narcissism, schizophrenia, paranoia that runs rampant amongst the Jewish community.” They claim they can only talk on spaces and are frustrated that they’re not allowed to discuss Jews, asserting that the audience doesn’t realize they’re effectively arguing their own point. They conclude with a push to let them talk about how many Jews there are.

Speaker 0 launches into a furious monologue, directing insults at someone who would report fellow Americans to the federal police, calling them dumb, idiotic, unpatriotic, and un-American. The speaker says, “Eat a dick,” and condemns anyone celebrating the capture or arrest of fellow Americans. They insist they are not moving on to other news and insist on staying on the topic, expressing anger toward those they reference as helping “the feds.” The speaker demands that the others understand they should not think the situation will benefit them or make them feel safer. They declare, “God is just and swift,” and threaten a confrontation, signaling they will address the matter aggressively while claiming to have “friends in high places” who will listen without payment, asserting they know they are a “good fucking person,” American, and a Christian who loves the nation. In contrast, they accuse the others of not loving their country, not being Christian, and not caring as much as they claim. The speaker asserts they have ample time and resources, contrasting themselves with others who supposedly have less. They reference a public figure, Candace, suggesting someone is upset by her actions toward someone named Charlie, and claim they have time to engage as needed. The speaker rejects the idea of having four kids, stating they have “a bunch of anger,” substantial intelligence, and many friends, and they condemn their opponents with coarse language. They declare they will not threaten violence and assert they would not harm a fly, stating they love flies even though they think they are awful. They insist they do not have to harm anyone, claiming God tells them not to seek retribution on their enemy and that vengeance belongs to God. The speaker ends by reiterating, “Fuck you,” and asserting that God loves them and will handle the situation, directing final hostility toward the unnamed others.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Speaker 0 describes an encounter where a person tells her, “good luck to your husband dealing with you,” and she responds, “my husband loves me.” The other person replies that “that’s why we’re trying to get him fired,” indicating to Speaker 0 that this is not an isolated incident but part of an organized group aiming to destroy both her and her husband’s livelihoods because of her political criticisms of a foreign government. Speaker 0 emphasizes her husband has nothing to do with her career, works in athletics at a school, loves his students, and is not going to issue a statement condemning his wife. Speaker 0 explains that the group’s goal is to destroy her husband’s livelihood for failing to condemn her publicly. She notes that the husband wants no part in politics and is not responsible for her career. She decides to file a police report and asks for identifying information about a woman she encountered, including video of the woman and her dog, to corroborate the incident. Speaker 0 highlights the woman’s alleged attempt to sic her dog on Speaker 0 and her dog, pointing to the dog’s behavior as evidence. She asks the woman if it was appropriate to use her dog in that way, and the woman denies it, insisting she did not sick the dog on them. The conversation shifts as Speaker 0 presents a separate video that she claims proves her account. The other person attempts to interrupt, insisting, “You’re trying to get me fired,” and Speaker 0 counters that everyone is trying to get her fired and that the other person is part of that group. Speaker 1 admits that others are trying to get Speaker 0 fired and acknowledges that the other person is “part of that everybody.” Speaker 0 reiterates that the woman tried to sic her dog on them and threatens her husband’s livelihood, asserting she will not be intimidated. Speaker 0 emphasizes she will continue her commentary and will not apologize for her actions or stance, even if the confrontation involves threats or stalking behavior online. Throughout, Speaker 0 frames the situation as an organized effort to silence and ruin both her and her husband over her political critique of a foreign government, while defending her husband’s innocence and his separation from her professional life. She asserts resolve to document the incident and press charges, and to persist with her public commentary despite the confrontation.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

The speaker states they have never called out behavior like this before and acknowledges the courage of those who have, expressing that it is terrifying to do so. They are unsure how to word the video but will proceed. The speaker asks how others cope with the anxiety of speaking out.

Speaker 0: Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. Speaker 1: If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech. And we're not gonna let that be justified.

Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech, and we're not gonna let that be justified.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 are filmed at a door where a confrontation unfolds after online remarks about the Jewish community. Speaker 1 begins by stating they’re there because of comments made online about the Jewish community, and asks, “You So what? I’m saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude.” Speaker 0 responds, “Yeah. No. We we we get that. We get that.” Speaker 1 adds, “We just we gotta make sure that you’re not Do have a” and continues, “get a warrant?” The officers stress their authority by noting the presence of a “no soliciting” sign and explain, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting. You understand that. Mhmm.” Speaker 0 acknowledges, “Yeah.” Speaker 1 reiterates the sign’s meaning and says, “Sign says no soliciting. What do they think they’re fucking doing? They got no warrant. Sign that says no soliciting does not give you a right to my curtilage. Bye bye. Freedom of speech.” The conversation escalates with the officers enforcing a boundary around the property. Speaker 0 challenges the encounter, while Speaker 1 insists on the illegality of soliciting without a warrant, pointing to the no-soliciting sign as justification for their presence. Throughout, Speaker 1 frames the interaction as a matter of free speech, while Speaker 0 and the recording voice push back on the idea that signs or government authority justify intrusion. In a series of inflammatory statements, the discussion broadens from the individual doorstep visit to a broader political claim: “This is what they’re doing, guys. You make comments about the Jews online, they’ll fucking show up at your door.” Speaker 0 adds, “This is freedom of speech.” Speaker 1 responds with skepticism about the impact of online comments and the response they’ve triggered, saying, “Look at this response for exercising my freedom of speech online.” The exchange culminates with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 exchanging final declarations: “What a fucking joke. Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys. Bye bye,” and reiterating the sign’s message, “Sign says no soliciting.” Overall, the dialogue centers on a door-step confrontation triggered by online comments about the Jewish community, framed as a debate over freedom of speech versus property rights and the boundaries implied by a no-soliciting sign and curtilage, ending with an unresolved assertion of jurisdiction and mutual dismissal.

The scene centers on a confrontation over online comments about the Jewish community. The speaker says, “We’re here because of the comments you made online about the Jewish community.” The other person pushes back with, “I have a freedom of speech, dude.” The responders acknowledge that but insist they must verify a legal issue: “Do you have warrant?” The reply is, “No.” A sign is pointed out reading “no soliciting,” and the others explain, “What you’re doing is basically soliciting.” They state, “You understand that. Mhmm.” The situation is summarized as the person not being welcomed, with the conclusion: “Yeah. It means you’re not welcomed here.” They instruct, “Okay. Bye. Okay. Stay off the lawn, please.”

The speaker states that an uninvited individual acted disrespectfully by being near the family, demonstrating their character. The speaker believes this person knows it is inappropriate to be near the family. The speaker asserts that actions speak louder than words. According to the speaker, political operatives are trying to turn the situation into a political issue involving hate, bigotry, and racism. The speaker claims that conservative operatives have been posting about the case nonstop.

"there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that ever, and there never will be." "Because if they can tell you what to say, they're telling you what to think, there is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human." "Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way." "Any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances." "That's got to be the red line." "Because, again, when they can do that, what can't they do?"

At the core of the left, at the core of a liberal, is someone that would use the sword if they had it. They are very violent people at their core. They always have it. They can't debate. They can't have conversation. So they'll resort to these tactics. They're gonna do everything they possibly can to try to murder this movement because they can't beat us. So they're gonna try to take weapons. And now we're very aware of that. I'm aware of it. We have to have full time security. This is not a joke. This is who these people are.

"A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express his views." "that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like." "Well, there's free speech which of course we all acknowledge is important so so important." "But then there's this thing called hate speech." "Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way." "They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence." "And we punish violence, don't we? Of course, we do."

The transcript centers on a confrontation about online remarks regarding the Jewish community and the limits of freedom of speech. Speaker 0 is pressed by others who state they are there because of comments made online about the Jewish community. The exchange focuses on whether the speaker has a right to say what they did and the conditions under which they can be approached. - The dialogue opens with a question to Speaker 0: “Try that again. We’re here because of the comments you made online about the Jewish community.” Speaker 0 responds with, “Are you So what? I’m saying are are you I have a freedom of speech, dude. Yeah.” - The other party acknowledges the freedom of speech point but insists on authority: “No. We we we get that. We get that. We just we gotta make sure that you’re not Do have a get a warrant? No.” They indicate they do not have a warrant, noting, “No. That’s why we’re Yeah. You see that sign? Yeah. So it says no soliciting. What you’re doing is basically soliciting. You understand that. Right?” - Speaker 0 acknowledges, “Mhmm. Yeah.” The other party explains the sign’s meaning: “It means you’re not welcomed here.” The interaction ends with a brief dismissal: “K. Bye. Okay. Stay off the lawn, please.” - The scene then shifts to an accusatory public-facing monologue: “This is what they’re doing, guys. You make comments about the Jews online, they’ll fucking show up at your door. This is what they do. This is freedom of speech.” - A second, more vehement display of grievance follows: “This is how much control Israel has over our country. Look at this response. For exercising my freedom of speech online. Wow. What a fucking joke. What a fucking joke. Can’t wait to do some auditing of you boys. Bye bye.” - They emphasize the sign’s authority again: “Look at that. Sign says no soliciting.” The speaker questions legitimacy: “What do they think they’re fucking doing? They got no warrant. Sign that says no soliciting does not give you a right to my curtilage. Bye bye. Freedom of speech.” In summary, the exchange juxtaposes claims of freedom of speech with assertions of authority, including notices of “no soliciting,” the absence of a warrant, and the speaker’s insistence that comments about the Jewish community provoke direct, public confrontation. The dialogue reflects tensions between online remarks, on-site responses, and interpretations of legal boundaries (signs, curtilage, warrants) as well as polarized accusations about political influence and perceived control.

The speaker states that an uninvited individual acted disrespectfully by being near the family, demonstrating their character. The speaker believes this person knows it's inappropriate to be near the family. The speaker asserts that actions speak louder than words. The speaker accuses political operatives of trying to turn the situation into a political issue of hate, bigotry, and racism. The speaker claims conservative operatives have been posting nonstop about the case.

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 making a provocative claim that everything people experience, including rape and addiction, is attracted into their life, and that the people involved in rape or pedophilia are attracted to those acts. Speaker 1 pushes back, asking for clarification about cases of pedophilia and how these dynamics should be understood. Speaker 0 continues by saying that the children are attracted to the pedophile, and Speaker 1 challenges them to pursue the line of thought by asking to go there. They discuss how labels of good and bad are often tied to who one chooses to side with. Speaker 0 expresses discomfort with the implication of the discussion and provides a hypothetical: if someone assaulted his wife at home, he would “forcibly stop” them and would value stopping the act “100% certainly.” He argues that morality at the moment would drive one’s reaction to harm, and asserts that when one sees something as evil, one would act to stop it, emphasizing that it is evil in one’s perception. Speaker 0 then asserts a universal standard: it is not acceptable to beat a child to a pulp or to sexually assault a child. He argues that there is something fundamental inside humans—a driving force toward life, love, freedom, and the experience of living in the world—and when someone intentionally interferes with that, there is an obligation to try to prevent or stop them. He adds that one can override impulses, acknowledging personal temptation to harm that has been resisted. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of repressing desires and then attacking his customers publicly. He suggests Speaker 0 is taking information that contradicts his stated beliefs and refuses to broadcast it because it conflicts with his system, describing it as a fight that Speaker 0 is ready to engage in. The tension is evident as Speaker 0’s and Speaker 1’s reactions become increasingly heated; Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1’s hands are shaking. Speaker 1 criticizes the stance of not exposing certain information on the show, arguing that it challenges his beliefs and that he is unwilling to “pacify” his research for anyone. He asserts that there are upsides to events, even to the murder of children, stating that there are upsides to it. Speaker 0 concludes with an abrupt decision to stop the discussion: “I think we’re gonna have to stop here, John.”

The speaker asserts that white supremacists who came with planned, premeditated threats were not peaceful, and states, “I don’t have to be peaceful. I don’t owe anybody peace.” They reference a sign described as “Piece of shit. That sign.” A few weeks later, felony indecent exposure charges were filed against this registered sex offender.

The speaker addresses the severity of threats and the dangers of vigilantism. They note that someone has been arrested for threatening them with terrorist threats, underscoring that it is no joke to be in the DOJ at this time. In discussing aggressive actions against law enforcement, the speaker highlights a scenario where someone breaks into a car of a law enforcement official and then uses information found inside to dox people and publish their home addresses. They emphasize that this action is not limited to targeting the ICE agent alone; it extends to the agent’s family, including the children, the wife, and the husband, highlighting the broader, more serious impact of such conduct. The speaker characterizes this behavior as a very serious matter. They warn that if someone believes they can operate as a renegade militia to police ICE, that person may spend many years in prison for doing so, labeling such a stance as a bad idea. The message clearly rejects vigilantism as a method of protest. The speaker asserts that protest is legitimate and notes their own history of protesting, framing protests as acceptable when conducted through proper channels. However, they insist that breaking into cars, doxxing individuals, and publishing home addresses are not acceptable forms of protest. The conclusion of the statement urges consideration of different, lawful approaches to expression and dissent. The speaker urges others to think of other ways to protest, emphasizing that the approach described—vigilante actions against ICE and doxxing—does not constitute an appropriate form of protest. The overall message is a strong warning against taking the law into one’s own hands and a call to pursue protests through lawful, nonviolent, and constructive means.

Two voices, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, erupt in a heated argument filled with confrontation, insults, and conflicting accusations. Speaker 0 insists he did not assault anybody and denies any wrongdoing, repeatedly accusing others of criminal behavior and bullying. He berates the others as “piece of shit,” “fat bucks,” and “bunch of fucking pussies,” while predicting that they will die a “sad fucking lonely death.” He claims, “Arresting American citizens” and says, “You slam it on him,” denying that he slammed the door. He asserts that “you guys are abducting people off the streets” and challenges the group to meet him, asking for a street wave and directing them to a location. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0, urging him to avoid assault and to provide clarification on what just happened. He notes that they “exited here” and that they are “around you guys.” He and Speaker 0 discuss their location: “ Sheridan and Belmont. Sheridan and Belmont. We’re on the corner,” specifying the intersection to reach them. He asks for patience, saying “Hold on. Stand by.” He reports surrounding actions and voices concern about the confrontation, emphasizing they will soon be in contact with each other and that they are near the other party. The exchange grows more acrimonious as Speaker 0 continues to threaten and insult, telling the other party to tell a Facebook group where they are “Camping out like a bunch of buck bunch of fucking pussies.” He repeats the charge that others are “arresting American citizens” and asserts that the situation is not assault, while Speaker 1 maintains it could be considered assault “at the next stoplight.” The dialogue reveals a tense, personal clash, with Speaker 0 attacking the other side’s families and immigration background: “All your families came from different fucking countries.” As the tension escalates, both speakers exchange directions and indications of where they are relative to the others. Speaker 0 directs a left turn at various landmarks, asking, “Where do I turn? I turn left, turn left, right, turn left,” and acknowledges the need to communicate their location to the other group. The dialogue ends with continued dispute over the events, the concept of assault, and where each party should proceed, punctuated by raw insults and threats. The exchange centers on alleged abduction and assault, the fear of being targeted by authorities, and the urge to confront the other group at a nearby intersection near Sheridan and Belmont.

Speaker 0: There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that's across the aisle.

Speaker 0 confronts another person with repeated "Get the fuck out" and "Don't come back," insisting "Let me move. Let me get out" while being pushed toward the road and urged to "Fucking walk." The exchange includes "Stop it" and "Stop sticking your camera to people's fucking face," followed by "I didn't do anything" and "I have the right to be here. Okay. Did I say I have the right to be here. I have the right to film." The other person threatens violence: "You come back, I'm gonna fucking smoke you, dude," and "gonna smash that fucking camera." The scene ends with the claim: "DHS watching you right there lasered on you. You have a sniper lasered on you right now. I don't give a fuck."

"One challenge with all of us is that the onus is often placed on the person or persons experiencing the harm to be accepting and continue to engage with someone who could possibly be okay with their continued harm and even justify it." "What we've gotten here is that those who cause harm are given grace and understanding without any consequences for their actions." "I'm not saying take consequences away. Again, you can call out and scold and give consequences for the behavior, but to go back to the Frankel idea, it's respecting the dignity of the person still." "Many of the people who participated in the Holocaust could have been considered not a horrible person and yet people died." "Yeah, I mean, all we can do is fight back in whatever way we can." "Because I have seen, again, I come from Ohio."

They confront someone about online comments they made about the Jewish community. The person asserts, “I have a freedom of speech, dude.” The others respond that they understand freedom of speech but need to ensure the person isn’t doing something wrong; one asks, “Do you have warrant?” and the response is, “No.” They point to a “no soliciting” sign and tell the person, “What you're doing is basically soliciting,” noting that they’re not welcome there. The dialogue ends with “Okay. Stay off the lawn, please. K. Bye.”