5 ms·
> "Free Palestine, F Zionists" Does the FBI usually get involved when someone says these words in public in the US?
by alfiedotwtf 5mo ago
> "Free Palestine, F Zionists"
Does the FBI usually get involved when someone says these words in public in the US?
- esseph 5mo ago[flagged]
- lostlogin 5mo agoGive citizens time, one of them might persuade Trump to attack another country, levelling the score. Greenland isn’t out the danger zone yet.
- stego-tech 5mo agoNot directly, no, but they’ll build a file for what they consider extremist views. Just look back to the Civil Rights Movement era for the list of things people said that would get them an FBI file - we have a long and storied history of surveilling anyone and everyone who says things that go against what political power desires. That being said, I do think any cabin crew pitching a fit over such a hotspot name is absolutely in the wrong. That’s not a threat, that’s personal opinion, and it’s not the hotspot owner’s fault the crew conflates Zionist ideology specifically with Jewish Faith in general like an ignorant fool.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- alfiedotwtf 5mo ago“Free Palestine” isn’t exactly fringe. In fact, outside America and Israel, I’d bet it’s the default stance
- chimeracoder 5mo ago> “Free Palestine” isn’t exactly fringe. In fact, outside America and Israel, I’d bet it’s the default stance That's certainly not true in many European countries
- lostlogin 5mo ago> That's certainly not true in many European countries This suprised me. I’ve hunted for polling and can find plenty showing a plummeting opinion on Israel, but little on internal polling about a Palestinian state.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5mo agoPolls are interesting. They depend exclusively on people willing to respond. Let me give you an example of how they don't tell the whole story: In the USA, there are many, many firearms. And there's also a small but very vocal cadre of people who would like to disarm the people. In light of this, if a pollster calls and asks for your opinion on guns, and/or inquires if you have any, a common response is to hang up without answering the questions, due to the possibility that the information will be used against them. The result? They call someone else, and don't count "declined to answer" in their results. So the poll simply is the prevailing opinion of those who wished to answer, and thus is skewed one direction. (BTW, this is why everyone says there are "at least XXX hundred million guns in America; the best they can get is a low estimate) This happens quite a lot with controversial topics.
- lostlogin 5mo agoIs the person hanging up pro or anti gun rights? I get that they aren’t counted but it’s hard to guess their stance. Similarly, it’s always interesting to compare polls to electoral results. The correlation seems to be drifting.
- gpvos 5mo agoI'm pretty sure it is. Maybe a little less so in Germany, but even there.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- ajross 5mo agoNot sure why this is downvoted. This was an example from the same article. And the answer is that the FBI wasn't involved. That was a threat the pilot made, which comes psychologically from the same place as terrorist bomb threats (and also "eat your vegetables or you'll die early" parenting). You want to control someone's behavior so you threaten maximalist retaliation.
- fortran77 5mo ago[flagged]
- Cyph0n 5mo ago[flagged]
- hluska 5mo ago[flagged]
- kennywinker 5mo agoNo that was because they hate our freedom, not because of decades of occupation and war all over the middle east funded by US taxpayer dollars.
- lostlogin 5mo agoI’d like to see a rebuttal to this comment. Is the US now safer after the Iran attacks?
- linkregister 5mo agoThe stated reasoning by Osama bin Laden in a letter published in 2002 [1] was primarily a response to grievances over the US support of Israel's occupation of Palestine, as well as a number of unrelated grievances mostly due to the choices of the various monarchies in the Gulf Arab states. For example, retaining a presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of King Abdullah. It may be satisfying to affirm a world view in either direction in the topic, but an understanding of 20th century history suggests that Al Qaeda noted some legitimate grievances while others were not factual or misrepresented. For example, the United States did not support Russia's campaign in Chechnya. Additionally, American military campaigns in Afghanistan were in direct response to Al Qaeda's mass killings of noncombatants and Taliban refusal to stop Al Qaeda military activity based in Afghanistan. 1. https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/218e2431-0b76-43ff-8ac5-284ae73d29ad/content https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/server/api/core/bi... Note: this hyperlink may die. The original copy published in The Observer has tragically suffered from link rot.
- isoprophlex 5mo ago[flagged]
- sbayg 5mo agoCognitive dissonance can explain a lot. If you don’t think the current regime is genocidal (whatever that even means) then you might get very concerned that anybody who says it is genocidal is a dangerous lunatic or terrorist sympathizer. Even saying something obviously truthful like “there are good people on both sides” becomes a threatening provocation. Hate is a system.
- megous 5mo ago[flagged]
- lostlogin 5mo agoIt’s not just the beating and killing of people. That seems bad enough, but the recent episode of ‘settlers’ torturing a dog is horrific. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/22/world/middleeast/settler-attack-dog-west-bank.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/22/world/middleeast/settler-...
- megous 5mo ago[flagged]
- lostlogin 5mo agoDiscussion around it quickly turns into a ‘yes but look what they did’. It baffles me. A rich, powerful democracy should be held to a higher standard. But… yes, both sides have been terrible. Which side is going to work towards a peaceful coexistence?
- megous 5mo agoPunishing child killers is not a high standard.
- hluska 5mo agoAn aircraft is not really public. The Captain and FO have a tremendous amount of power they can wield to make sure a flight passes without incident. A plane is not the place to make statements. Granted though, the FBI didn’t actually get involved. But why let facts get in the way of rage?
- alfiedotwtf 5mo ago> A plane is not the place to make statements Sounds like they should only be made in freedom designated zones a-la Bush-Cheney
- tjpnz 5mo ago[flagged]
- lostlogin 5mo agoCan you? ‘I support Palestinian Action’ is all I can think of and it’s the same length.
- jim33442 5mo agoDoes that actually get you arrested, or do you have to go to a Palestinian Action protest? Not that there's that big of a difference.
- lostlogin 5mo ago> Does that actually get you arrested I can’t see that it ever has. Making it fractionally less ridiculous. "Those attending should be aware that showing support for a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act, and we will not hesitate to act where the law is broken," said commander Claire Smart, who is leading policing operations in London this weekend.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp38z9lylddo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp38z9lylddo
- jim33442 5mo agoAh so the wording suggests that it's a thought/speech crime, not that the particular event is outlawed. Yeah that's still nuts.
- tjpnz 5mo agoA paddy wagon is now speeding towards your home.
- lostlogin 5mo ago> when someone says these words in public in the US? Depending on where the plane was, it might not even have happened in the US.
- School-Cotton 5mo agoNo. It’s not illegal to express that opinion (or any opinion) in public in the US in any normal scenario. I’m not sure to what extent the law is different on planes, but you can go outside on the street and yell “free Palestine, F Zionists” to your heart’s content and you will not have broken any laws.