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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
NSPM-7 isn’t a license for thought policing. It’s an investigative strategy for identifying actual criminal activity within the bounds of existing law and oversight.
Referencing Minority Report is a false analogy that ignores the film’s real controversy, which was about punishing people for crimes that hadn’t happened, not investigating credible threats.
There are no new federal crimes being prosecuted that are tied to speech. Investigations still operate under existing law targeting criminal conduct, not expression.
You seem to think that monitoring rhetoric is inherently authoritarian, but it isn’t. Those markers are used to flag potential risks, not to criminalize beliefs. The strategy is about identifying when ideology begins translating into real-world violence, which is a basic and necessary function of law enforcement, not government overreach.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime.
So just to be clear, I know this. I'm not acting like the government did something illegal, I'm acting like someone told me a crime is being investigated necessarily because the FBI is doing the investigating. No shit, dude, I know what the FBI does.
If someone asks for a source when you say the FBI is investigating a crime, they're not asking what the FBI is, they're asking what the (potential) crime is. If you don't know, don't answer; certainly don't answer with something you know is unhelpful. Answering like that makes it seem like you think they're investigating because they can, not because they should.
So, to clarify with this particular case, they're investigating assaults that occurred at the protest, which they should do because that's a crime (and trying to tie it to aNtIfA because they're morons, assuming it isn't malice). One should not trust that the FBI are working within the bounds of the law, one should verify that they are. Hope that helps.
Requesting a source for that is pointless. It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. I’m not making a specific allegation, I’m describing routine investigative behavior. If you doubt it, you’re free to verify it yourself.
> It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure.
The only thing the officers told the guy is "We're investigating the protest that happened". Then they asked him questions about the protest organizers and if/how he knew them. It's unreasonable to then say "they're investigating a crime"; they're obviously investigating protected speech and public assembly. They even claim they are investigating such. At that point it's actually reasonable to expect a source for the (counter-)claim that they're really investigating a crime.
> I’m not making a specific allegation
Well, except "they're investigating a crime". They are not investigating a crime. They are investigating. Whether or not they are investigating a crime comes down to whether or not a crime was committed. To say they are investigating a crime means you know what they are investigating.
If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that.
‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews.
If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation.
Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification.
> If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that.
I'm saying these officers are idiots who believe the words of liars because it is convenient for them and because the lies happen to match their preconceived notions.
> ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target.
Right, it doesn't "imply", it states explicitly.
> The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself.
They will say "events related to". Minimally, if they say "the protest", it is reasonable to think that is the subject in their own heads. The officers involved believe they're investigating speech and assembly. That is a reasonable observation.
> As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews.
Regardless, they provide an accurate depiction of the actual subject of their investigation.
> If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation.
I would, of course, think they are investigating people who organize and/or participate in the football team, the same as if they said "the protest".
> Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification.
Your interpretation is imprecise and credulous without justification.
Seems you’re committed to your interpretation regardless of what I clarify. At this point there’s nothing productive left to discuss regarding my perspective.
It's still unclear what exactly you're asserting, though. If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing?
Seems you're committed to your misdirections regardless of what I point out. At this point there's nothing left to discuss regarding your failure of communication.
> If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing?
If you'll notice, I've been trying to get you to explain what crime you think they're investigating. I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation. Instead, I'm doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.
None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Those were your incorrect projections.
You say, ‘I’m doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.’ Do you have evidence for that, or are you basing it entirely on the phrase ‘investigating a protest’? What do you think that means, and what exactly are you asserting they are doing?
> None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime.
Well, this is not true. Yet again I simply must explain that writing the words "they're investigating a crime" is literally a point that hinges on there being a specific crime. Without that, and especially with the words "we want to ask you questions about a protest", it is not reasonable to say that. Minimally, when someone else asks for a source, they probably don't just need to be told what the FBI is.
I can, at least, assert with evidence that they are not investigating a crime. You've so far failed to assert with evidence that they are investigating a crime. You may not feel you need evidence to assert that but basic logic suggests otherwise.
> ‘I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation.’
Let’s just agree on this and move on. I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.
> I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.
That's good for you but I am interested in this discussion. Language matters; saying they are investigating a crime does make it sound like a crime occurred.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
> 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.
I think I see where you’re getting tripped up. You’ve taken my use of ‘adversarial’ to mean I believe the interviewee is personally being investigated or prosecuted for a crime. That’s not what that means.
My mention of federal obstruction was just an example to illustrate why the FBI might be investigating at all. It was a hypothetical meant to show that the investigation likely concerns criminal activity surrounding the protest, not the protest or his speech itself.
I’m never suggested the person interviewed is guilty or even a suspect. He’s a lead, someone questioned because he may have information relevant to a broader investigation.
By now it should be clear that the only nonsense here has come from your misinterpretation and bad faith assumptions. Do you have any more bullshit for me to correct, or are you actually interested in understanding what I said?
> I’m never suggested the person interviewed is guilty or even a suspect.
Yes, you did. Even if you think you can confuse the situation by claiming that adversary doesn't mean what adversary means. Not all interactions between government employees and civilians are "adversarial". You want a new word, not to claim the old word means whatever you say it does.
> An opponent; an enemy.
> In law, having an opposing party, in contradistinction to unopposed: as, an adversary suit.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/adversary (go ahead and find a definition that means "person of interest" or "investigative lead"; you won't, because that's not how people use the word)
> I think I see where you’re getting tripped up.
When you use a word wrong, it's not on others to understand your intended meaning. You didn't mean they became an "adversary of the state". Others' interpretations of your use of the word "adversary" has been, of course, reasonable.
> My mention of federal obstruction was just an example to illustrate why the FBI might be investigating at all. It was a hypothetical meant to show that the investigation likely concerns criminal activity surrounding the protest, not the protest or his speech itself.
Your mention of it was not an example. Why do you write like I can't simply go back to the original context? You first wrote "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary." and justified it by saying "Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is. That’s what they’re looking for." If you really mean that it's an example, then you want "could be" instead of "is".
Do you have any more bullshit for me to correct, or are you actually interested in understanding what words mean?
Ok you're clearly not interested in actual discussion. You assume my perspective incorrectly and call bullshit when I clarify, that’s bad faith. You also seem unable to grasp that your false assumptions distort how you interpret everything that follows.
I am very interested in actual discussion. I have been engaging with the substance of your comments and explaining exactly why I think it's bullshit. That's good faith. You seem unable to grasp that your misunderstandings distort how you interpret others' comments.
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.
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.
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.
Why not? Castle doctrine is already a thing in some states which allows you to shoot anyone including cops if they threaten you on your property and I think its a valid policy.
How does rule of law and property rights suffer? Rule of law will improve if cops are not given special rights. They would think twice before doing anything illegal.
