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.
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.