4 ms·

How to misunderstand the situation 101: bring the first amendment into the discussion when that’s not what the discussion is about. Let me break this down for

How to misunderstand the situation 101: bring the first amendment into the discussion when that’s not what the discussion is about. Let me break this down for you: you host a weekly poker night. My buddies and I come and during these nights plan a crime. We than carry out a crime and get arrested. The investigators come to you and ask “what did those guys talk about at your poker nights?” You say “poker stuff”. They subpoena you to get a better answer. Where in all of this did the first amendment come into play?

gjsman-1000 5y ago
- ModernMech 5y ago
  You may have missed the indictment yesterday for seditious conspiracy against the Oath Keepers. It contains evidence of the kind you are looking for.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  Sounds like you haven’t seen much evidence then. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/oath-keepers-sedition-takeaways/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/oath-keepers-seditio...
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    In that case, I am still not convinced, because how many people have ever heard of the Oath Keepers? To me, from what I can tell, this means that there was a bunch of people protesting there, as was their legal right. A very small group had plans to break in, and unexpectedly succeeded in doing so. Everyone else then followed even though this hadn't been pre-planned. So, from Facebook's perspective, you would have to censor at the level of squashing ants to have prevented this. Again, this is just from what I can see though and could be proven wrong.
    - IgorPartola 5y ago
      Literally none of this is about censorship. I know it’s inconvenient but you have to read the actual articles posted, not just the headlines. I have heard of them and I am nowhere near those circles or even the news sites all that much. They are a rather infamous org (that’s not a good thing). It sounds like you keep moving the goal posts (“I have not seen any evidence… ok I have seen the evidence but it’s not good enough evidence… ok there is evidence but it wasn’t enough people…”) so I am not going to keep replying but I urge you to read first, post second.
  - satronaut 5y ago
- ben_w 5y ago
  I’m not a lawyer so I may be missing something here, but I would expect a bunch of pipe bombs to be evidence of rather more than a mere protest. Or is this one of those weird second amendment rights that makes no sense outside of the USA?
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Who planted the pipe bombs? Do you have proof that it was the rioters? If so please give the evidence to the FBI.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      A trite response like that only makes sense if pipe bombs are so commonplace in the American Capitol that mere coincidence would not be surprising. I’m not American, so you tell me: are they?
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        Pipe bombs are not common. I'm sure you know that. The problem is we are in an extremely polarized time. Accusing people of an act like planting pipe bombs with no evidence is not going to lower the temperature.
        ben_w 5y ago
        > Pipe bombs are not common. I'm sure you know that. Good, but no, if you are insisting on a standard of evidence so high that you are not willing to accept that the evidence points towards the obvious conclusion, then I must use a standard of evidence that says that actually no I don’t know how common pipe bombs are in DC. I mean, seriously I don’t know that — Literally everything about the second amendment looks that mad from outside for USA. This is in fact why I bothered to ask and didn’t dismiss the idea inside my own head. > Accusing people of an act like planting pipe bombs with no evidence is not going to lower the temperature. Evidence isn’t ever absolute. If I put two coins in a bag one of which is fair and the other one is biased 99% heads, I draw out a coin at random, flip it and get tales, I can be fairly sure it’s the fair coin even though I don’t know for certain. We know someone planted them because they were found, and we saw a person putting at least one of them in place on camera. Coins from a bag, which do you think it might be? And “lower the temperature”? Guess who is being blamed for that in all the press that I, a foreigner not living in the USA, get to see? Hint: lots of them have already been convicted.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  There’s actually video of capitol police waving them in.
- josefx 5y ago
  > I have not seen any evidence that the rioters in question planned to break into the Capital building. Isn't that what a subponea is for? A crime was committed, that is 100% sure, we know that the criminals used these services to organize, so these services are the obvious place to look for more evidence related to the crime. > That was a later unplanned innovation as far as I've seen. Of course, can you head over to help the police out next. They always seem to take ages to solve murders and having someone walk in look at the situation from outside and tell them how they think it happened with a quick glance at the directly visible facts would really speed things up. Who needs an investigation.
- wvenable 5y ago
  The guy with zip-tie cuffs...
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Not that this condones zip tie guy of breaking the law on other counts, but I thought the zip tie cuffs were found to be immaterial to his charges, because he found them rather than brought them with him (https://www.yahoo.com/news/capitol-riots-zip-tie-guy-190644133.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/capitol-riots-zip-tie-guy-1906441... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/eric-munchel-lisa-eisenhart-released-riot/2021/03/29/7c9eacd6-90bb-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/eric-munch...). My understanding is that he claimed he found them and took them away so Capitol police would not use them to restrain protesters. To my knowledge, subsequent charges have not actually determined any further malicious act stemming from the zip-tie cuffs specifically.
MiroF 5y ago
> They subpoena you to get a better answer Sure except the subpoena in question was not actually about records of conversations that the rioters had, it was about efforts FB did/didn't take to discount election misinformation. Election misinformation is covered by free speech.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  > Election misinformation is covered by free speech. In the same way as yelling “fire” in a theater.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    So? Illegal the legal according to then overruled by SCOTUS, and widely misunderstood when it’s used as a reference?
  - MiroF 5y ago
    > In the same way as yelling “fire” in a theater. Not at all? There's a clear moral (and certainly legal) dividing line between the two.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

ModernMech 5y ago
You may have missed the indictment yesterday for seditious conspiracy against the Oath Keepers. It contains evidence of the kind you are looking for.
IgorPartola 5y ago
Sounds like you haven’t seen much evidence then. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/oath-keepers-sedition-takeaways/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/oath-keepers-seditio...
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  In that case, I am still not convinced, because how many people have ever heard of the Oath Keepers? To me, from what I can tell, this means that there was a bunch of people protesting there, as was their legal right. A very small group had plans to break in, and unexpectedly succeeded in doing so. Everyone else then followed even though this hadn't been pre-planned. So, from Facebook's perspective, you would have to censor at the level of squashing ants to have prevented this. Again, this is just from what I can see though and could be proven wrong.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    Literally none of this is about censorship. I know it’s inconvenient but you have to read the actual articles posted, not just the headlines. I have heard of them and I am nowhere near those circles or even the news sites all that much. They are a rather infamous org (that’s not a good thing). It sounds like you keep moving the goal posts (“I have not seen any evidence… ok I have seen the evidence but it’s not good enough evidence… ok there is evidence but it wasn’t enough people…”) so I am not going to keep replying but I urge you to read first, post second.
- satronaut 5y ago
ben_w 5y ago
I’m not a lawyer so I may be missing something here, but I would expect a bunch of pipe bombs to be evidence of rather more than a mere protest. Or is this one of those weird second amendment rights that makes no sense outside of the USA?
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Who planted the pipe bombs? Do you have proof that it was the rioters? If so please give the evidence to the FBI.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    A trite response like that only makes sense if pipe bombs are so commonplace in the American Capitol that mere coincidence would not be surprising. I’m not American, so you tell me: are they?
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      Pipe bombs are not common. I'm sure you know that. The problem is we are in an extremely polarized time. Accusing people of an act like planting pipe bombs with no evidence is not going to lower the temperature.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        > Pipe bombs are not common. I'm sure you know that. Good, but no, if you are insisting on a standard of evidence so high that you are not willing to accept that the evidence points towards the obvious conclusion, then I must use a standard of evidence that says that actually no I don’t know how common pipe bombs are in DC. I mean, seriously I don’t know that — Literally everything about the second amendment looks that mad from outside for USA. This is in fact why I bothered to ask and didn’t dismiss the idea inside my own head. > Accusing people of an act like planting pipe bombs with no evidence is not going to lower the temperature. Evidence isn’t ever absolute. If I put two coins in a bag one of which is fair and the other one is biased 99% heads, I draw out a coin at random, flip it and get tales, I can be fairly sure it’s the fair coin even though I don’t know for certain. We know someone planted them because they were found, and we saw a person putting at least one of them in place on camera. Coins from a bag, which do you think it might be? And “lower the temperature”? Guess who is being blamed for that in all the press that I, a foreigner not living in the USA, get to see? Hint: lots of them have already been convicted.
commandlinefan 5y ago
There’s actually video of capitol police waving them in.
josefx 5y ago
> I have not seen any evidence that the rioters in question planned to break into the Capital building. Isn't that what a subponea is for? A crime was committed, that is 100% sure, we know that the criminals used these services to organize, so these services are the obvious place to look for more evidence related to the crime. > That was a later unplanned innovation as far as I've seen. Of course, can you head over to help the police out next. They always seem to take ages to solve murders and having someone walk in look at the situation from outside and tell them how they think it happened with a quick glance at the directly visible facts would really speed things up. Who needs an investigation.
wvenable 5y ago
The guy with zip-tie cuffs...
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Not that this condones zip tie guy of breaking the law on other counts, but I thought the zip tie cuffs were found to be immaterial to his charges, because he found them rather than brought them with him (https://www.yahoo.com/news/capitol-riots-zip-tie-guy-190644133.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/capitol-riots-zip-tie-guy-1906441... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/eric-munchel-lisa-eisenhart-released-riot/2021/03/29/7c9eacd6-90bb-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/eric-munch...). My understanding is that he claimed he found them and took them away so Capitol police would not use them to restrain protesters. To my knowledge, subsequent charges have not actually determined any further malicious act stemming from the zip-tie cuffs specifically.

MiroF 5y ago

> They subpoena you to get a better answer Sure except the subpoena in question was not actually about records of conversations that the rioters had, it was about efforts FB did/didn't take to discount election misinformation. Election misinformation is covered by free speech.

IgorPartola 5y ago
> Election misinformation is covered by free speech. In the same way as yelling “fire” in a theater.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  So? Illegal the legal according to then overruled by SCOTUS, and widely misunderstood when it’s used as a reference?
- MiroF 5y ago
  > In the same way as yelling “fire” in a theater. Not at all? There's a clear moral (and certainly legal) dividing line between the two.