The agents may not have learned anything from Serafini, but the visit — which took place one day before the No Kings protest — did accomplish one thing: Serafini decided against going to No Kings. He was spooked.
That is exactly the chilling effect on speech that the FBI investigating political matters risks creating.
Ugh, I might have to start caring about politics again, this is unacceptable.
You should! We shouldn't let ourselves be dragged silently into the dark times. In my opinion, it's our obligation to try to understand the landscape and to make sure that everyone — across the different political beliefs — is well off... Only then do you get a system that rewards merit, instead of whatever the heck you want to call what is being dropped on us.
Don't you think that a few hundred instances of articles like this could have a chilling effect?
If you keep reading articles over a few months about different people being visited/interviewed by the FBI, you'll at some point have the thought "can they somehow find out about me?".
It's Panopticon-lite, give the impression they might be able to see you even if there's no realistic capacity to watch everyone at once and you'll feel a little more paranoid, that's a chilling effect.
Now couple that with the friend of the administration Larry Ellison's quote about "if we watch every citizen they'll be in their best behaviour", and you get to a political project of control.
When federal agents, such as the FBI, attempt to question you, it is strongly advised that you do not talk to them without a lawyer present. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees you the right to remain silent and to have an attorney. There were several instances in this account where Serafini's answers could be used to paint his involvement as not so innocent.
>When federal agents, such as the FBI, attempt to question you, it is strongly advised that you do not talk to them without a lawyer present.
Yes. This. James Duane lays out[0] why this is so important. I strongly encourage everyone resident in the US to view this video as it makes (IMHO) a very strong case for never talking to the police -- they are not (at least in their official capacities) your friends.
SCOTUS actually took some of that "constantly being legally challenged and blocked" away when they took away nation-wide injunctions. Even if they're issued by federal judges against nation-wide orders which were given by a nationally-powerful elected official.
> SCOTUS actually took some of that "constantly being legally challenged and blocked" away when they took away nation-wide injunctions.
Arguably, they added to it, since now nation-wide policies are instead being blocked locally by multiple district courts instead of just facing nationwide injunctions in the first place they are litigated.
Okay… what do you think a lawyer is going to say? Almost mostly, “Answer their questions.”
Another POV is, why assume that this do not cooperate advice, which smart people keep not following, is right? It’s a meme. Are memes important for law and life? They are brain rot.
The advice isn't "don't cooperate", it's "don't cooperate without a lawyer present", and even if the lawyer tells you to answer the question, you're probably still better off with the lawyer present.
But hey, do what you want since you apparently seem to know it's a meme and not advice worth following.
At this point, being a martyr as an African American whose ancestors have been on this land longer than the US existed is probably my best contribution to countering this regime. I've always wondered if I would need to put my body on the like the way my grandfather did in New Orleans.
Nothing controversial about it. Many states have castle doctrine. People have killed violent intruders including cops and successfully won the case in court.
Call your Respectives, donate where you can, and if you're active on social media: boost the voices you want to hear and let them get the word out.
And of course, keep your eyes peeled for any elections in your area. No matter how minor a position. If you can donate / volunteer for their campaigns, all the better. These situations will need to be fixed bottom up in the long term, so you never know what comptroller today becomes a senate tomorrow.
If you're American, go on strike. Nobody gives a shit about people holding signs and protesting peacefully. If you can't do anything to make the opposition care about you, don't expect them to do anything other than ignore you.
Ok. I'm a contractor. I live in Florida with zero protections. I have three kids. I'm 51 and have had a hell of a time finding work the last few years. I'm pretty scared of doing this, honestly.
Peaceful protest makes the massive assumption that there is a working press out there that is willing to be sympathetic. Instead, our press seems to be at best complicit and capitulation-minded, at worst collaborative.
For what it's worth, I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I remember quite clearly the way the press treated Occupy Wall Street, pretending that it was just a bunch of random loiterers who didn't have clear demands and goals.
In that case, the media simply made the editorial choice not to go out of their way to engage with the protesters, metaphorically covering their ears and then asking why they couldn't hear anything. Things have only gotten worse in the decades since.
Name some historical examples where people only protested on the weekend, didn't go on strike, and didn't have a threat of violence or some sort of leverage behind it.
I totally get it and appreciate your words. When I step back I realize I have a lot of privilege and many others face much worse prospects and are much more courageous than I am.
You really think a bunch of people holding signs on the weekend, then going back to work the next day is accomplishing anything? What are you accomplishing?
It doesn't matter how many of you there are if none of you are willing to actually do anything. If I just ignore you, how does it change anything in my life? The only thing you're achieving is making yourselves feel better about accomplishing nothing.
at a minimum, it makes it clear to others that they are not alone in thinking this regime is beyond the pale.
people who are able to take other actions like engaging via the judicial system, or peacefully refusing to continue working, are also encouraged by seeing peaceful masses of people agreeing with them.
it actually harms the cause to be dismissive of people who can contribute by simply making their peaceful objection visible.
> it actually harms the cause to be dismissive of people who can contribute by simply making their peaceful objection visible
I think it harms the cause to feel better about accomplishing nothing. You've created a morale booster, but you haven't actually achieved anything or put forth any sort of plan to enact any sort of change. Assuming your goal is to make the government function according to written laws, why would the current president give a shit about anything you say when he can just continue to ignore you? If he ignored you before, you holding up a sign isn't going to do anything.
Protests work when there is some sort of threat behind it. Most protests you read about in history aren't a few hours on the weekend, they're ongoing where everybody is already participating in a strike. And many of them have the obvious threat of violence behind them. This "protest on the weekend" shit is pathetic. I'm not going to congratulate you for wasting time while everything continues to get worse. From my perspective you are part of the problem.
> Nobody gives a shit about people holding signs and protesting peacefully.
Do both. The person in this story clearly was not ignore.
They do in fact care otherwise they wouldn't be so beligerent about it. It takes 3% of the country protesting to get undeniable attention and last weekend was getting close to that threshold. 330m Americans or so, the threshold is around 10m. And this weekend was counted with 7m.
Your voice does matter, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I don't know, it'd be kind of funny if there weren't any protests, just everyone goes home and plays GTA VI. It's not like the cause of the striking would be unknowable.
>When you see the signs, and they’re all made out of a beautiful, beautiful paper. Beautiful, nice, stiff, very expensive paper with beautiful wood handles all the same. All the same color. They come from very expensive printing machines. These are are people that write out their signs in a basement, that believe in something. These are paid anarchists.
-Trump
This man is a child with questionable critical thinking skills. Now we have agents out running around chasing his imagination because he thinks nice paper and printing is hard to come by.
> Is FBI being instructed that protesting ice is antifa terrorism?
Yes, both the President and the Attorney General have been doing this openly, and explicitly citing it as the basis for their instructions to federal law enforcement. They have also been prosecuting based on false testimony of federal officers about assaults (and being forced to dismiss a stunningly high number of filed cases on that basis), and still using the numbers from those false claims as basis for asserting a huge spike in assaults on federal offficers, which also is being cited directly as justification for reallocating resources and setting enforcement prioirities.
That’s exactly why they tried to claim there’s a terrorist “Antifa” group: since there’s no such organization or defining principles, there’s a lot of gray area to investigate anyone they find politically incorrect.
The political part of the FBI has something LIKE a Palantir dashboard that says, here's a list of people you should talk to, every day, and then the FBI civil service has something LIKE a Jira, that tells agents to go talk to these people, and they do.
Is the FBI being "instructed?" Yes. But it gets "instructed" every day, what has changed? (1) Republicans aren't a no-regulation thing, they are a vague regulation thing. The policies and regulations exist, they just make less sense, they're less visionary, less consistent than the ones that Democrats make. (2) There is better alignment between the tools, like a Palantir dashboard that LLM-reads social media posts, and these vague policies. (3) A list of names cuts through the bureaucratic / administrative friction of vague policy.
If protesting ICE is anti-fascist, what does that make ICE? Sending the FBI to the homes of law-abiding citizens who happen to be planning to protest against government actions... What's that? More Americans need to start asking themselves questions like these.
I'm in Canada, but what's going on South of the border has become highly concerning. It's starting to feel like Belgium up here.
That's like saying there is no such thing as communism. There is such a thing as communism, it is an ideology, not an organization. The Communist Party USA is an organization, not an ideology.
Antifa, in the US context, is used to describe an organization that doesn't exist. People were protesting various causes, but very vocal right-wing extremists started using that label to imply there is an organization which they can blame for alleged violence.
There are people who think that every person on the planet should be able to immigrate to the US (or other first world countries). This is a radical position as it couldn't possibly work.
(I don't know about this person, I'm not saying it's widespread, just saying what a radical is.)
I grew up in communist Poland before the fall of the wall in 1989 is just one story among many from this year that sounds like an echo of what my parent's told me they had to grow up with.
That so many Americans, in the self proclaimed land of the free, voted for this reality under the delusion they were against "socialism" is the most historically illiterate thing ever.
Look at the places in the US that are favoring Trump and correlate that with the places that have the worst school systems in that country. Also have a look at which party dominated the politics in those areas in the last couple of decades and how they treated their respective school systems. There is a pattern there that is, in a way, self-supporting.
God, I hated that phrase. Not because it was wrong, but because it was so weirdly soft and indirect. A bundle of ignobles! An assortment of the unseemly!
Do we ever learn why these posts get censored or is it just going to keep fuelling conspiracies? Unless fuelling conspiracies is actually less bad for the offender because there _is_ a conspiracy!
- Some people will flag any political content they see, believing all political content to be off-topic.
- Some people support the current regime and will flag any content they consider anti-establishment.
- Hacker News is designed so that it takes very few flags to stick, so as to aggressively filter signal from noise, for as greedy a definition of "noise" as possible.
There's no conspiracy here, it's just Hacker News being Hacker News. If you want to be able to discuss these things freely, find another platform. Otherwise just accept that any "political" content will very likely be flagged at some point.
Everything on this site is political. YC is very much a political entity, they are simply censoring what to an outsider would be YC’s political opposition.
> If you want to be able to discuss these things freely, find another platform.
I believe it is productive to continue discussing these topics here.
Hacker News has a reputation as a place where you can have reasonable discussions with smart people in good faith. It is a facade, but tearing down this facade is done by making the attempts at censorship more visible and blatant.
No but there are clearly patterns in what "off topic" stuff gets flagged. Many people work in analytics here. It'd be nice if some number crunching was done.
I can tell you why. There's no conspiracy, not really.
Instead, it's an attitude of "I know what I voted for, and I'd prefer not to be reminded of its negative externalizes, thanks. Also, I'd really prefer it if this sort of news not filter out into the greater consciousness of Hacker News, because it might cause other people to reconsider their support."
One of the biggest lies of HN is that it's a place of open and reasonable debate and discussion. In reality, it is highly curated by the users who have access to the moderation tools in order to shape the conversation. There's no direct coordination or conversations, just a widespread unspoken agreement.
I don't disagree with their decision-making in a vacuum. There's nothing wrong with bias if it's something people are generally aware of, so it can be accounted for. On the other hand, I think that there's a significant moral hazard of a site that pretends to be unbiased but has an unaccountable cabal of users putting their collective thumbs on the scale, and HN very much falls into that camp.
I mean, yeah, that’s one of those subjective things. I think freedom of speech topics are pretty closely embedded with tech and entrepreneurship whether we like it or not. But I appreciate if that’s not how moderators see it. As long as that kind of choice moderation made consistently. I feel like I see far more off topic posts live longer. And for sensitive topics, a short explanation might be worth it.
> I think freedom of speech topics are pretty closely embedded with tech and entrepreneurship whether we like it or not.
That's a useful fiction, useful until it's not. This post[1] was on the front page briefly today. These people aren't obscure or powerless, they're billionaires, embedded in the current administration, etc.
> Then I started noticing something I couldn’t ignore. Smart people I respected—especially in cryptocurrency—were casually discussing feudalism. Not as history or provocation, but as serious proposals for organizing society. “Democracy and freedom are incompatible.” “Most people aren’t capable of self-governance.” “Elite overproduction is the problem—we educated too many people above their station.”
> These weren’t fringe cranks. Peter Thiel writing that democracy and freedom are incompatible. Curtis Yarvin publishing blueprints for corporate monarchy. An entire neo-reactionary apparatus in Silicon Valley while I optimized payment systems. And they were explicit: the democratic experiment failed, constitutional constraints prevent necessary action, most people should accept subordinate roles, the intelligent few should rule.
Absolutely, but the mods here are great and I trust their opinion.
The panopticon is built on the technology and culture at the center of HN, so hopefully they have sympathy for my not being able to predict that the post would be flagged. I think it's important to understand and discuss the escalating technology-based erosion of our privacy and rights, but I'll guess we'll just do that at the monthly Antifa meetings. /s
That is highly debatable. Stories about "politics, or crime" are allowed if "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon"[1]. I'm not sure what to make of the word "interesting" there, but this is clearly a new phenomenon that is deeply concerning and worth discussing.
There's the written rules, and then there's the enforced rules. Political posts might not always be against the rules-as-written, but they're almost always against the rules-as-enforced-by-flagging.
HN moderators will tell you flagging is a user voting phenomenon they have control over, but it's not - I was also told my flags don't count, because mods disabled my flags from counting because I flagged things different from what the mods wanted to be flagged. Flags are not a type of user voting, they are a centralized moderation thing.
Not a lawyer, but I would advise anyone in a similar situation to exercise their right to tell these goons to fuck off. You always have the right to remain silent.
Censored is perhaps strong. But yes, it’ll likely get flagged for being off topic or get downranked because of arguing. Which I understand to an extent but I also feel like we’re approaching five alarm fire for democracy levels.
When it’s too late a whole lot of people are going to look up from their terminals and say “huh? What’s going on? You know, I try to avoid anything too political.”
Ultimately the moderators have decided that these kind of posts are "not what the site is for". It's unlikely they'll implement some kind of filter as users can filter out what the moderators have decreed what they want the site to be.
That's what Tildes does. They even do subtags. Like this year politics.us was added for those who wanted to opt out of this in their feed
But yes, I simply don't expect this place to be responsive to 90% of politics at this point. I can see how Silicon Valley leans very conservative in cases like this and how it swaya the tech industry as a whole.
I've been sounding alarm bells since the early DOGE days. The site just casts then off.
Bluesky is probably the best place if you want to communicate directly with policy makers (ones who likely aren't assisting the regime). I personally talk about political stuff on Tildes as a smaller community that doesn't tolerate blatant hate. There's tech threads on Tildes as well, but to a lesser extent.
I don't have a reddit accout, but I generally also just browse a few reddit subs to get the fist gist of any major news. Just for 15 minutes or so. Politics for general stuff, Law for oversteps (thoighthough these days there's a lot of overlap), economics and economy for any more trade war nonsense.
unfortunate, but i'm thinking these rules keep this forum a good tech forum. I do like getting in here before the flag and check any comments that do get through.
This is relevant to HN because it is entirely possible that Flock Safety helped the FBI here.
It's just as likely that mass cellular surveillance tools like IMSI catchers were used, and its a near certainly that social media and tech platforms germane to HN's audience (you (the reader) may work for one!) have also contributed to locating this person.
These tools and the allowances we give LEO and being turned towards good-faith 1st amendment activities like carrying signs and freely assembling.
At the same time, earlier this year Salt Typhoon showed us that geopolitical adversaries used these same tools in secret against our government and industry leaders (Like the ones you work for!)
Can't wait to see civil war declared and HN still tries to suppress that nothing is wrong (I pray this is wrong, but who knows at this point? I'd say we're already at 4 star alarm bells. I could finally use my favorite meme from Avatar: The Last Airbender
Currently, number 1 on the front page. I expect it to drop in minutes.
EDIT: 3 minutes. That is how long it lasted after my comment before it was flag killed. I truly wonder what the line will be for all the technolibertarians and the "I don't care about politics" folks here to wake up to what is currently going on in this country.
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 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.
All of this, including the video, is hearsay. That is, it is unauthenticated. Not a single part of the title is confirmed.
Neither us nor the author apparently know whether the men shown were real FBI agents. Con men operate the same way - wave a badge and pretend to be someone.
So these FBI imposters knew he went to a protest, where he lives, and want to ask questions? If they were criminals, wouldn't they want something from him?
This comment reads to me like you understand the implications and it makes you uncomfortable so you're deflecting with nonsense. Let's assume they're real FBI agents: what do you think of this action?
What about this story makes it "BS"? Your comment(s) provide no rebuttals or anything to discredit this story. It doesn't sound like you're a skeptic, more like you'd made your up mind prior to reading the article.
> why should we assume anything
Because discarding something as fake news is not good faith. Believe it not, you can simultaneously be skeptical and engage with the content of the article. The question still stands: what do you think about the FBI going to a protestors house to ask him questions about it?
> We need better reporting and part of that is verification.
He tried reaching out to the FBI but they declined to comment due to the ongoing government shutdown as noted in the article. What level of "verification" would make you happy?
> There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith".
You're not answering anything with substance. Yes, it's a convienent strategy to assume everything is fake news when it doesn't fit your narrative. But that's not reality and it's pretty obvious that you're deflecting.
> Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual?
Yes, he's an independent journalist that's reported on some big stories this year already. Given the actions against civil rights we've seen already from this administration, sending FBI agents to ask questions is certainly tame by comparison and very plausible.
“Never believe that anti-Semites [or in this case, fascist apologists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre[0]
> According to Serafini, the two FBI agents showed him photos of himself at the protest as well as several other protesters — people he knew nothing about.
All this work plus the risk of a charge of impersonating a federal agent... and they didn't ask him for money. Deep grift.
That is exactly the chilling effect on speech that the FBI investigating political matters risks creating.
Ugh, I might have to start caring about politics again, this is unacceptable.