3 ms·

Given that parents getting into a shouting match with a particularly dense school board functionary is defined as "terrorism" now I think this can only lead to

by smsm42 5y ago

Given that parents getting into a shouting match with a particularly dense school board functionary is defined as "terrorism" now I think this can only lead to the terrorism accusation losing its sting. If every petty political squabble is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism.

rnk 5y ago
A shouting matches at a school board in the US at least is not terrorism. Bringing your guns and saying you might use them in the future and making vaguely threatening comments about that sounds like something that should be illegal to me. Saying I hate this decision that you're making and I'm going to vote against you, not terrorism.
klyrs 5y ago
In which law can I find such behavior defined as terrorism? Because there's a big difference between a law on the books and a politician spouting off.
- smsm42 5y ago
  The law is vague enough so that if FBI wants, it can declare a real lot of things to be domestic terrorism. The official definition is "dangerous criminal acts intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence or affect government policy or conduct within the jurisdiction of the United States". Now, what is "dangerous"? There's no objective standard to it. Some people say publicly disagreeing with the government is "dangerous" for our democracy. A lot of people thinking Twitter and Facebook not banning everybody to the right of Nanci Pelosi is "dangerous". Other people say using wrong pronouns is "dangerous". Yet other say disagreeing with CRT is "dangerous". It all depends on how the law enforcement would define it. Next is "influence or affect government policy". If you protest the government, you obviously want to influence its policy, right? Otherwise, what's the point of it? So, as long as FBI is willing to consider you "dangerous" - and again, there's no objective definition of it, and they will suffer absolutely zero consequences if they're wrong or overzealous in it - they have lawful authority to treat you as a terrorist. Of course, there's a serious step to overcome - "criminal act". Only the court can decide if an act is "criminal". But for the FBI is would be impossible to enforce the law if they had to wait for a court conviction to do anything - so obviously, they are given a lot of leeway in persecuting acts that they think are "criminal" - and as long as they can prove there's not a law that explicitly says what you were doing is not criminal and FBI is explicitly forbidden from prosecuting you - even if you ultimately prove your innocence they suffer zero consequences. It's called "qualified immunity", look it up. And when we're talking about "terrorism", they could do a real lot of damage to you without ever taking matters to court. The process is often the punishment, and they can ruin your life very thoroughly way before you ever see the inside of a courtroom. And we know for a fact they are willing to lie in court documents - including outright fakery - to achieve their goals. You personally probably wouldn't be big enough fish for them to need to do that - but if they need to, they will.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    That's a very loquatious way to say that no, shouting at a school board meeting is not legally defined as terrorism. And, you're awfully fixated on American policy on this story about a situation going down in Canada. We are not the 51st state.
    - smsm42 5y ago
      No, that's not what I said. What I said is, if FBI wants it, it can be treated by them as terrorism, and to prove them wrong would take a lot of effort. And there's no way neither to prevent them from it, nor to punish them for getting it wrong. And if you think matters are different in Canada with respect to how law enforcement works, or how "anti-terrorist law" works - you'll soon learn Canadian law enforcement can make one's life hell the same way FBI can.

by smsm42 5y ago

rnk 5y ago

A shouting matches at a school board in the US at least is not terrorism. Bringing your guns and saying you might use them in the future and making vaguely threatening comments about that sounds like something that should be illegal to me. Saying I hate this decision that you're making and I'm going to vote against you, not terrorism.

klyrs 5y ago

In which law can I find such behavior defined as terrorism? Because there's a big difference between a law on the books and a politician spouting off.

smsm42 5y ago
The law is vague enough so that if FBI wants, it can declare a real lot of things to be domestic terrorism. The official definition is "dangerous criminal acts intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence or affect government policy or conduct within the jurisdiction of the United States". Now, what is "dangerous"? There's no objective standard to it. Some people say publicly disagreeing with the government is "dangerous" for our democracy. A lot of people thinking Twitter and Facebook not banning everybody to the right of Nanci Pelosi is "dangerous". Other people say using wrong pronouns is "dangerous". Yet other say disagreeing with CRT is "dangerous". It all depends on how the law enforcement would define it. Next is "influence or affect government policy". If you protest the government, you obviously want to influence its policy, right? Otherwise, what's the point of it? So, as long as FBI is willing to consider you "dangerous" - and again, there's no objective definition of it, and they will suffer absolutely zero consequences if they're wrong or overzealous in it - they have lawful authority to treat you as a terrorist. Of course, there's a serious step to overcome - "criminal act". Only the court can decide if an act is "criminal". But for the FBI is would be impossible to enforce the law if they had to wait for a court conviction to do anything - so obviously, they are given a lot of leeway in persecuting acts that they think are "criminal" - and as long as they can prove there's not a law that explicitly says what you were doing is not criminal and FBI is explicitly forbidden from prosecuting you - even if you ultimately prove your innocence they suffer zero consequences. It's called "qualified immunity", look it up. And when we're talking about "terrorism", they could do a real lot of damage to you without ever taking matters to court. The process is often the punishment, and they can ruin your life very thoroughly way before you ever see the inside of a courtroom. And we know for a fact they are willing to lie in court documents - including outright fakery - to achieve their goals. You personally probably wouldn't be big enough fish for them to need to do that - but if they need to, they will.
- klyrs 5y ago
  That's a very loquatious way to say that no, shouting at a school board meeting is not legally defined as terrorism. And, you're awfully fixated on American policy on this story about a situation going down in Canada. We are not the 51st state.
  - smsm42 5y ago
    No, that's not what I said. What I said is, if FBI wants it, it can be treated by them as terrorism, and to prove them wrong would take a lot of effort. And there's no way neither to prevent them from it, nor to punish them for getting it wrong. And if you think matters are different in Canada with respect to how law enforcement works, or how "anti-terrorist law" works - you'll soon learn Canadian law enforcement can make one's life hell the same way FBI can.