6 ms·

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. Th

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.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      I’ve repeatedly clarified that speech isn’t obstruction and that investigation isn’t punishment, yet those were your projections, not my original claim. You’ve been arguing against a version of my point that only exists in your own framing. My point is straightforward. If you call lawful arrests ‘kidnappings,’ the state will view you as adversarial, meaning subject to scrutiny or investigation, not that speech itself is a crime or obstruction. A simple ‘What do you mean by that?’ would have been far more productive than dragging the discussion into refuting claims I never made. That’s a classic bad-faith debate pattern.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > I’ve repeatedly clarified that speech isn’t obstruction and that investigation isn’t punishment, yet those were your projections, not my original claim. You seem to be confused again. I've been explaining that you were suggesting that the speech was obstruction. I've explained why it appeared to be so based on what you wrote. I don't need you to "clarify" that speech isn't obstruction; that's what I've been doing for you. Yet here you double down that you never claimed it in the first place. (Hey, talk about "classic bad-faith debate patterns".) > My point is straightforward. If you call lawful arrests ‘kidnappings,’ the state will view you as adversarial, meaning subject to scrutiny or investigation Right, I understand your view: federal obstruction is a crime ("Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is."), speech reasonably justifies suspicion for the crime of federal obstruction ("If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary."), so these officers were investigating this person for the crime of obstructing federal officers ("That’s what they’re looking for.") via his speech. That's not a "projection", it's a reasonable understanding of the words you wrote. > A simple ‘What do you mean by that?’ would have been far more productive than dragging the discussion into refuting claims I never made. That’s a classic bad-faith debate pattern. Well, surely it would have been productive for you to spout a bunch more bullshit but the reason I'm calling out your bullshit is to make you defend it. (/s) And, of course, instead of defending it, you simply state it again as though people misunderstand and then tell everyone that a plain-reading understanding of it is a personal projection. Yeah, tell me more about this "bad-faith" thing.
  - donkeybeer 1y ago
    Of course its just interrogation, not a block to their free speech. I'd like to call for a swat raid on your house too, just for interrogation.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      Awesome idea
donkeybeer 1y ago
Of course. Just as civilians should have the right to investigate unknown armed terrorist elements in black and follow them to their home for interrogation and if necessary arrest and elimination.
- mycodendral 1y ago
  Good luck with that
  - donkeybeer 1y ago
    Why not, I don't believe in special rights for anyone. Cops are not military and should be subject to the same powers and laws as everyone else. If a cop can arrest or shoot you, then you should be able to arrest and shoot cops too. I don't believe in special snowflake bullshit. If they hate that then they can wrap themselves in blanket and lock themselves into their houses, because if all your "balls" rely on having special rights its pure pussydom. I fully believe in changing the laws to this state of being.
    - cindyllm 1y ago
      [dead]
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      Ok, so you want to rewrite the existing legal force framework. Again, good luck with that. Folks who argue this rarely provide a coherent alternative that holds up to scrutiny. > ‘If a cop can arrest or shoot you, then you should be able to arrest and shoot cops too.’ Let me know when you’ve proposed a coherent legal framework that’s actually consistent with that idea.
      - donkeybeer 11mo ago
        Whats incoherent about it? That's it. We just remove all special powers from police. What more do you need?

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.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    I’ve repeatedly clarified that speech isn’t obstruction and that investigation isn’t punishment, yet those were your projections, not my original claim. You’ve been arguing against a version of my point that only exists in your own framing. My point is straightforward. If you call lawful arrests ‘kidnappings,’ the state will view you as adversarial, meaning subject to scrutiny or investigation, not that speech itself is a crime or obstruction. A simple ‘What do you mean by that?’ would have been far more productive than dragging the discussion into refuting claims I never made. That’s a classic bad-faith debate pattern.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > I’ve repeatedly clarified that speech isn’t obstruction and that investigation isn’t punishment, yet those were your projections, not my original claim. You seem to be confused again. I've been explaining that you were suggesting that the speech was obstruction. I've explained why it appeared to be so based on what you wrote. I don't need you to "clarify" that speech isn't obstruction; that's what I've been doing for you. Yet here you double down that you never claimed it in the first place. (Hey, talk about "classic bad-faith debate patterns".) > My point is straightforward. If you call lawful arrests ‘kidnappings,’ the state will view you as adversarial, meaning subject to scrutiny or investigation Right, I understand your view: federal obstruction is a crime ("Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is."), speech reasonably justifies suspicion for the crime of federal obstruction ("If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary."), so these officers were investigating this person for the crime of obstructing federal officers ("That’s what they’re looking for.") via his speech. That's not a "projection", it's a reasonable understanding of the words you wrote. > A simple ‘What do you mean by that?’ would have been far more productive than dragging the discussion into refuting claims I never made. That’s a classic bad-faith debate pattern. Well, surely it would have been productive for you to spout a bunch more bullshit but the reason I'm calling out your bullshit is to make you defend it. (/s) And, of course, instead of defending it, you simply state it again as though people misunderstand and then tell everyone that a plain-reading understanding of it is a personal projection. Yeah, tell me more about this "bad-faith" thing.
- donkeybeer 1y ago
  Of course its just interrogation, not a block to their free speech. I'd like to call for a swat raid on your house too, just for interrogation.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    Awesome idea

donkeybeer 1y ago

Of course. Just as civilians should have the right to investigate unknown armed terrorist elements in black and follow them to their home for interrogation and if necessary arrest and elimination.

mycodendral 1y ago
Good luck with that
- donkeybeer 1y ago
  Why not, I don't believe in special rights for anyone. Cops are not military and should be subject to the same powers and laws as everyone else. If a cop can arrest or shoot you, then you should be able to arrest and shoot cops too. I don't believe in special snowflake bullshit. If they hate that then they can wrap themselves in blanket and lock themselves into their houses, because if all your "balls" rely on having special rights its pure pussydom. I fully believe in changing the laws to this state of being.
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    Ok, so you want to rewrite the existing legal force framework. Again, good luck with that. Folks who argue this rarely provide a coherent alternative that holds up to scrutiny. > ‘If a cop can arrest or shoot you, then you should be able to arrest and shoot cops too.’ Let me know when you’ve proposed a coherent legal framework that’s actually consistent with that idea.
    - donkeybeer 11mo ago
      Whats incoherent about it? That's it. We just remove all special powers from police. What more do you need?