No, Emma Gonzalez did not tear up a photo of the Constitution

[AlbertWesker]

Maybe there’s some miscommunication here. I wasn’t saying that she shouldn’t be able to protest by tearing a copy of the constitution (but she obviously didn’t). I’m saying that other people downplaying the significance of the document in this thread by making comments like “it’s just a piece of paper” were being ignorant of the laws in it.

It sounded like the context of their statement was saying that the laws themselves were meaningless, as opposed to the actual act of tearing a document as a form of protest (which again didn’t happen).

[Splash Attack]

People aren't saying that the rights themselves aren't important, and I'd say you're pretty blind if you can't see the blatant worship of the document and the founding fathers as if they were akin to some deities and the constitution is their holy scripture.

[AlbertWesker]

That makes more sense. I thought the people were going full fascism for a moment.

[paramud]

What's important are the bills, articles, and clauses, not the piece of paper. Those articles are ideas. The paper is just a piece of sheepskin.

Those bills, articles, and clauses, by the way, would protect a person's right to tear up a representation of the original paper displaying them.