5 ms·

You'll be a fascist sooner or later, don't worry.

smt88 6y ago
By this logic, we shouldn't make or enforce laws because someday, someone can pass a law against harmless behavior. Regulation, moderation, and law enforcement are always a balancing act. We can't just say that balance is an impossible dream, so let's just give up.
- paganel 6y ago
  > By this logic, we shouldn't make or enforce laws because someday, someone can pass a law against harmless behavior. In a so-called liberal state we shouldn't send people behind bars for political reasons, not even fascists. Sending the people that protested at the Capitol behind bars is being done as a result of politics.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    You are forgetting the word "purely." If some fascist incites people to riot and innocent police officers get killed (hypothetical example), then there are strong political reasons to put the perpetrators behind bars for their crimes. Law and order is a political issue. Protection of institutions is a political issue. The First Amendment doesn't say you can incite a riot as long as it is a political riot. That a crime is politically motivated (or politically impactful) does not somehow absolve the perpetrator.
    - marknutter 6y ago
      Do you understand how high the bar is for a conviction in an incitement case?
      - totalZero 6y ago
        Surely you don't believe that the only politically motivated crimes are cases of incitement...yet I think you're a bit off track anyway, for a different reason. > In a so-called liberal state we shouldn't send people behind bars for political reasons, not even fascists Note the "shouldn't" -- even if your point were valid, it's moot because this is a conversation about "should" not "do." Gitlow v. New York upheld conviction based on a loose interpretation of "clear and present danger," and later Feiner v. New York held that the police can take action against speech when there is a clear and present danger. But again, none of that matters because we're not debating legal theory, nor implementation of law. Are you suggesting that we should pardon all criminals who are motivated in part or in whole by political reasons?
  - smt88 6y ago
    Please provide an example of someone who was sent to jail for protesting (and only protesting) at the Capitol on Jan 6. They must not have committed any of the following crimes: calling for violence, assaulting another person, or destroying public property. My girlfriend had at least 3 family members there who went, marched, and went home. None of them were tracked or charged with a crime.
    - timsayshey 6y ago
      They were definitely tracked: https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/fbi-tracks-cell-phones-that-were-near-capitol-insurrection-and-riot/65-ca268165-a5c5-46a4-8b88-943a8517343a https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/fbi-t...
      - smt88 6y ago
        You're right, and that is an abuse of technology. Still waiting for an example of someone being charged and convicted for peaceful protest.

By this logic, we shouldn't make or enforce laws because someday, someone can pass a law against harmless behavior. Regulation, moderation, and law enforcement are always a balancing act. We can't just say that balance is an impossible dream, so let's just give up.

paganel 6y ago
> By this logic, we shouldn't make or enforce laws because someday, someone can pass a law against harmless behavior. In a so-called liberal state we shouldn't send people behind bars for political reasons, not even fascists. Sending the people that protested at the Capitol behind bars is being done as a result of politics.
- totalZero 6y ago
  You are forgetting the word "purely." If some fascist incites people to riot and innocent police officers get killed (hypothetical example), then there are strong political reasons to put the perpetrators behind bars for their crimes. Law and order is a political issue. Protection of institutions is a political issue. The First Amendment doesn't say you can incite a riot as long as it is a political riot. That a crime is politically motivated (or politically impactful) does not somehow absolve the perpetrator.
  - marknutter 6y ago
    Do you understand how high the bar is for a conviction in an incitement case?
    - totalZero 6y ago
      Surely you don't believe that the only politically motivated crimes are cases of incitement...yet I think you're a bit off track anyway, for a different reason. > In a so-called liberal state we shouldn't send people behind bars for political reasons, not even fascists Note the "shouldn't" -- even if your point were valid, it's moot because this is a conversation about "should" not "do." Gitlow v. New York upheld conviction based on a loose interpretation of "clear and present danger," and later Feiner v. New York held that the police can take action against speech when there is a clear and present danger. But again, none of that matters because we're not debating legal theory, nor implementation of law. Are you suggesting that we should pardon all criminals who are motivated in part or in whole by political reasons?
- smt88 6y ago
  Please provide an example of someone who was sent to jail for protesting (and only protesting) at the Capitol on Jan 6. They must not have committed any of the following crimes: calling for violence, assaulting another person, or destroying public property. My girlfriend had at least 3 family members there who went, marched, and went home. None of them were tracked or charged with a crime.
  - timsayshey 6y ago
    They were definitely tracked: https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/fbi-tracks-cell-phones-that-were-near-capitol-insurrection-and-riot/65-ca268165-a5c5-46a4-8b88-943a8517343a https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/producers-picks/fbi-t...
    - smt88 6y ago
      You're right, and that is an abuse of technology. Still waiting for an example of someone being charged and convicted for peaceful protest.