3 ms·

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 signa

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?
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      Throwing around words like ‘police state’ and ‘regime’ makes you sound paranoid. No one is being questioned for speech alone, only when it relates to a possible crime. If you have evidence otherwise, show it. If not, you’re just being dramatic.
      - hypeatei 1y ago
        > Throwing around words like ‘police state’ and ‘regime’ When agents are coming to your house after a protest (how did they even find your identity?) to ask questions then I'd say it's fair to call it that. Remember, we've lived under a surveillance state since Bush and 9/11; a police state is a logical step once an authoritarian comes into power. > No one is being questioned for speech alone, only when it relates to a possible crime And the "possible crime" is what here? If he was being interrogated for a possible crime, he wouldn't be free to leave and they would need to read him his rights.
        mycodendral 1y ago
        It’s unreasonable to assume the FBI is doing anything but investigating crime without evidence. The man was voluntarily interviewed because his name came up in an investigation. Most interviewees are leads, not suspects. People are mistaking routine inquiries for persecution. Saying “we’re investigating the protest” is like saying “we’re investigating the football game.” It refers to related incidents, not the activity itself.
        hypeatei 1y ago
        It's not unreasonable, you can read the NSPM-7[0][1] which is an overarching strategy for agencies like the FBI to follow. NSPM-7 directs a new national strategy to “disrupt” any individual or groups “that foment political violence,” including “before they result in violent political acts.” In other words, they’re targeting pre-crime, to reference Minority Report. The whole order is pretty dystopian, using loose labels like "anti-Americanism", "anti-capitalism", "anti-Christianity", and "extremism on migration" as indicators of an extremist. 0: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun... 1: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-common-beliefs https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-commo...

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?
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    Throwing around words like ‘police state’ and ‘regime’ makes you sound paranoid. No one is being questioned for speech alone, only when it relates to a possible crime. If you have evidence otherwise, show it. If not, you’re just being dramatic.
    - hypeatei 1y ago
      > Throwing around words like ‘police state’ and ‘regime’ When agents are coming to your house after a protest (how did they even find your identity?) to ask questions then I'd say it's fair to call it that. Remember, we've lived under a surveillance state since Bush and 9/11; a police state is a logical step once an authoritarian comes into power. > No one is being questioned for speech alone, only when it relates to a possible crime And the "possible crime" is what here? If he was being interrogated for a possible crime, he wouldn't be free to leave and they would need to read him his rights.
      - mycodendral 1y ago
        It’s unreasonable to assume the FBI is doing anything but investigating crime without evidence. The man was voluntarily interviewed because his name came up in an investigation. Most interviewees are leads, not suspects. People are mistaking routine inquiries for persecution. Saying “we’re investigating the protest” is like saying “we’re investigating the football game.” It refers to related incidents, not the activity itself.
        hypeatei 1y ago
        It's not unreasonable, you can read the NSPM-7[0][1] which is an overarching strategy for agencies like the FBI to follow. NSPM-7 directs a new national strategy to “disrupt” any individual or groups “that foment political violence,” including “before they result in violent political acts.” In other words, they’re targeting pre-crime, to reference Minority Report. The whole order is pretty dystopian, using loose labels like "anti-Americanism", "anti-capitalism", "anti-Christianity", and "extremism on migration" as indicators of an extremist. 0: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun... 1: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-common-beliefs https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-commo...