6 ms·

This is the side that claims to be the champions of free speech?

by slg 1y ago

mycodendral 1y ago
[flagged]
- slg 1y ago
  You specifically said "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You're either excusing or endorsing the government sending armed goons to people's homes in response for saying something you/they don't like.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > They're investigating a crime Source?
      - mycodendral 1y ago
        here you go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        You're saying that because they're investigating, they must be investigating a crime. That doesn't really follow. Like, what if they're investigating this person because he went to a protest? > “We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June,” one of the agents said That's not a crime. Or did you mean something else? Or did the officers just forget to explain what crime they're investigating? If it's something like that, I would hope for a source that provides those details.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        It’s implied by their function that they’re investigating a crime. They have no obligation to explain which one, and it’s usually a bad strategy for the agent to do so. Revealing details risks compromising the investigation or tipping off potential subjects. "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened. Actually, I'm acting like you said that, which you have. You've claimed that it is necessarily the case that the FBI is investigating a crime by virtue of the fact that they are criminal investigators investigating something. The thing the FBI said they're investigating is a protest. Ergo, you are saying the FBI is investigating the crime of protesting. Going back a few comments, you wrote > They're investigating a crime That's not true. You have no reason to believe they're investigating a crime. In fact, there is reason to believe they are not investigating a crime because they said they are investigating something that is not a crime. > "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. Investigative work, yes, but not of a crime.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. If the police ask you about the restaurant you were at last night, it doesn’t mean you’re being targeted for eating dinner. This whole reaction is performative victimhood, like saying ‘Oh, I guess I can’t even go out to eat anymore because of government tyranny.’ That’s absurd. The FBI’s legal mandate confines it to investigating potential criminal activity. Assuming otherwise without evidence implies they’re operating outside their authority, which would be a serious breach. If that’s what you believe, show proof, it would be front page news.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcpyzdeoxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcpyzdeoxQ This video depicts several assaults on officers outside the facility, including someone throwing a metal barricade.
    - slg 1y ago
      You're acting like we can't see your original comment anymore. The words are right there, "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You weren't referencing any crime or investigation, you said that the wrong speech makes you an enemy of the state.
      - mycodendral 1y ago
        The FBI, by nature, investigates crimes, that doesn't need to be said. To quote my other post: I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.
        slg 1y ago
        >speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category Yeah, and that idea is fundamentally in opposition to free speech. A person shouldn't become a government adversary because of their speech. If they threaten violence or some other immediate harm, the government can investigate. But simply voicing opposition should never result in a government crackdown.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        You're hyperbolizing and mischaracterizing events to fit a delusional victimhood narrative. 1) No one prevented anyone from engaging in free speech. 2) In this case "government adversary" just means you may become person of interest, not a criminal to be charged. Free speech doesn't exempt you from that. 3) No "government crackdown" occurred. A conversation or interview isn’t a crackdown, it’s routine fact-finding. No arrests, charges, or penalties followed for this individual.
        hypeatei 1y ago
        You're in favor of a police state and see nothing wrong with law enforcement "just asking questions" over someone exercising their right to free speech. Got it. I, too, think we should send police to question dissenters because how could they not like the current regime?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is. I'm a little confused now. So you're saying that the officers shouldn't go after people just because they said words? Or do you still think it makes sense the state to treat someone like an adversary because of words they said? Your point seems inconsistent.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    If by ‘go after’ you mean investigate, then yes, officers should investigate people based on their words when those words suggest a possible lead in a crime. That’s basic police work. I’m not saying the state should punish someone for words. I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      But that's not what "obstruction" is. You seem to be saying 1) that investigating obstruction is reasonable (sure) and 2) that speech constitutes obstruction. Speech obviously doesn't constitute obstruction; they're not investigating a crime.
      - mycodendral 1y ago
        I’m not suggesting that speech is obstruction, that wouldn’t make sense. I’m saying the man interviewed was an adversarial person of interest, not someone guilty of a crime. Portraying him as a victim whose free speech was violated is absurd, being questioned isn’t censorship.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > I’m not suggesting that speech is obstruction, that wouldn’t make sense. Well, you're half right: that doesn't make sense. > Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is. > If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary. It seems like what you're saying is that "call[ing] lawful arrests 'kidnappings'" is obstruction. If you don't want your point of view to be confused, write more words in explanation. Instead, you write like you think other readers are too stupid to get it. > being questioned isn’t censorship Well, it can be. > to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor It mostly depends on the actual intention of the investigation. If they are investigating, well, because he was at a particular public place at a particular time, they are investigating this person because of his speech and public assembly, which is censorship by definition. They don't have reason to think this person was involved in the actual criminal activity other than, you guessed it, he was at the same, er, public assembly. > Portraying him as a victim whose free speech was violated is absurd It is absurd that his freedom of speech was violated in this way. It is especially absurd that you defend your rights being taken from you.

This is the side that claims to be the champions of free speech?

by slg 1y ago

This is the side that claims to be the champions of free speech?

mycodendral 1y ago

[flagged]

slg 1y ago
You specifically said "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You're either excusing or endorsing the government sending armed goons to people's homes in response for saying something you/they don't like.
- mycodendral 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > They're investigating a crime Source?
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      here you go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        You're saying that because they're investigating, they must be investigating a crime. That doesn't really follow. Like, what if they're investigating this person because he went to a protest? > “We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June,” one of the agents said That's not a crime. Or did you mean something else? Or did the officers just forget to explain what crime they're investigating? If it's something like that, I would hope for a source that provides those details.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        It’s implied by their function that they’re investigating a crime. They have no obligation to explain which one, and it’s usually a bad strategy for the agent to do so. Revealing details risks compromising the investigation or tipping off potential subjects. "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened. Actually, I'm acting like you said that, which you have. You've claimed that it is necessarily the case that the FBI is investigating a crime by virtue of the fact that they are criminal investigators investigating something. The thing the FBI said they're investigating is a protest. Ergo, you are saying the FBI is investigating the crime of protesting. Going back a few comments, you wrote > They're investigating a crime That's not true. You have no reason to believe they're investigating a crime. In fact, there is reason to believe they are not investigating a crime because they said they are investigating something that is not a crime. > "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. Investigative work, yes, but not of a crime.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. If the police ask you about the restaurant you were at last night, it doesn’t mean you’re being targeted for eating dinner. This whole reaction is performative victimhood, like saying ‘Oh, I guess I can’t even go out to eat anymore because of government tyranny.’ That’s absurd. The FBI’s legal mandate confines it to investigating potential criminal activity. Assuming otherwise without evidence implies they’re operating outside their authority, which would be a serious breach. If that’s what you believe, show proof, it would be front page news.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcpyzdeoxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcpyzdeoxQ This video depicts several assaults on officers outside the facility, including someone throwing a metal barricade.
  - slg 1y ago
    You're acting like we can't see your original comment anymore. The words are right there, "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You weren't referencing any crime or investigation, you said that the wrong speech makes you an enemy of the state.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      The FBI, by nature, investigates crimes, that doesn't need to be said. To quote my other post: I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.
      - slg 1y ago
        >speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category Yeah, and that idea is fundamentally in opposition to free speech. A person shouldn't become a government adversary because of their speech. If they threaten violence or some other immediate harm, the government can investigate. But simply voicing opposition should never result in a government crackdown.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        You're hyperbolizing and mischaracterizing events to fit a delusional victimhood narrative. 1) No one prevented anyone from engaging in free speech. 2) In this case "government adversary" just means you may become person of interest, not a criminal to be charged. Free speech doesn't exempt you from that. 3) No "government crackdown" occurred. A conversation or interview isn’t a crackdown, it’s routine fact-finding. No arrests, charges, or penalties followed for this individual.
        hypeatei 1y ago
        You're in favor of a police state and see nothing wrong with law enforcement "just asking questions" over someone exercising their right to free speech. Got it. I, too, think we should send police to question dissenters because how could they not like the current regime?
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is. I'm a little confused now. So you're saying that the officers shouldn't go after people just because they said words? Or do you still think it makes sense the state to treat someone like an adversary because of words they said? Your point seems inconsistent.
- mycodendral 1y ago
  If by ‘go after’ you mean investigate, then yes, officers should investigate people based on their words when those words suggest a possible lead in a crime. That’s basic police work. I’m not saying the state should punish someone for words. I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    But that's not what "obstruction" is. You seem to be saying 1) that investigating obstruction is reasonable (sure) and 2) that speech constitutes obstruction. Speech obviously doesn't constitute obstruction; they're not investigating a crime.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      I’m not suggesting that speech is obstruction, that wouldn’t make sense. I’m saying the man interviewed was an adversarial person of interest, not someone guilty of a crime. Portraying him as a victim whose free speech was violated is absurd, being questioned isn’t censorship.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > I’m not suggesting that speech is obstruction, that wouldn’t make sense. Well, you're half right: that doesn't make sense. > Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is. > If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary. It seems like what you're saying is that "call[ing] lawful arrests 'kidnappings'" is obstruction. If you don't want your point of view to be confused, write more words in explanation. Instead, you write like you think other readers are too stupid to get it. > being questioned isn’t censorship Well, it can be. > to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor It mostly depends on the actual intention of the investigation. If they are investigating, well, because he was at a particular public place at a particular time, they are investigating this person because of his speech and public assembly, which is censorship by definition. They don't have reason to think this person was involved in the actual criminal activity other than, you guessed it, he was at the same, er, public assembly. > Portraying him as a victim whose free speech was violated is absurd It is absurd that his freedom of speech was violated in this way. It is especially absurd that you defend your rights being taken from you.