FBI arresting people for internet posts

There is specific language which describes the kind of situation in which the founding fathers recognize the overwhelming majority as speaking with one voice for the replacement of tyrannical government. A scattered band of jacked up militia boys taking over a wildlife refuge and calling for the overthrow of the federal government doesn't meet that definition, no matter how sure the leaders of such a group think they might.

The "Solidarnosc" movement was a lot closer to meeting that definition.

 

Searching historical records for examples of successful large scale national anarchist societies...

 

I am not getting your point here. We all know that SCOTUS has decided there is a right to representation regardless of income, and we know that Miranda insists that suspects be informed on arrest of that right. I am not sure if you think either is a good thing or a bad thing.

That is settled law, I am talking about a legislative responsibility to fund Legal aide sufficiently so that the budgets are enough to offer the lawyer hours, the staff hours, and some investigatory hours so that there some real value to those services when it most can matter.

A lot of folks are selling their soul very cheap after the first or second interview, under some serious pressure without knowing the consequences of what they are signing.

 

Agreed, just noting the actual reality and the difference between the two.

 

I agree, I do not care if one is a Christian, Muslim, Left, Right, white, black, ect... person, if they are making threats online of terrorism, it's their fault if caught

.

 

It depends on what you mean by "successful", and large scale national anarchist society? Anarchism is about small self governing communities.
I am not sure what your point is though, we should accept what has already been tried?(like dictatorships and monarchies in the past)

- - - Updated - - -

Okay? Is what the majority thinks how we should all think?

 

"Self governing" sounds like ... uh ... rules of the community. What does an anarchist do if he doesn't want to be governed by the community? Should he just ignore the rules of the community? After all ... he's an anarchist.

 

There is no established law in anarchy. Anarchism is based on non-coercion(no forcing upon another individual), and can use self defense if necessary. Rules would have to be freely agreed on by all individuals of a community.

 

So again we have established that anarchists just want their own private island.
Only problem, they want it smack dab in the middle of the USA somewhere, in case they have a hankering for a Slurpee.
Tell ya what, go squeeze out a couple of kids, buy a house and you can have your small self governing community.

 

i would agree because we see in the Israel Palestinian conflict, when the rich have a good excuse such as violence, they will set up camps and take away rights to contain the threats.

so the second amendment probably ought to be banned, because it gives a false hope to those who think that will help them from their oppressors.

they would be better off peacefully protesting their grievances of a tyrannical government.

 

Seth, I agree 100%, we are at war in the USA and the "traitor" or treason angle is probably the one we should be using to fight this war. One approach would be to officially declare this war within the American homeland, clearly set the ground rules for what defines TREASON, close all the borders to everyone (within reason), and start the clean up process by hunting down, convicting and deporting or jailing all traitors.

Let's Make America Safe Again!

-pete

 

nyone thinki8n their pewpew will do anything good against gun ships, had best get meds adequate to the task.

Anyone holding out hopes of fighting against gunships, with pewpews, needs quaranteeing in a FEMA camp.

 

The problem is how it gets decided what constitutes a "threat". By the broadest interpretations, that could start imposing on the First Amendment.

If you argue passionately about a contentious political subject and become a little careless, you could easily become guilty of "breaking the law". You don't seem to understand that. It's very easy for government officials to interpret the law however they see fit.

Remember, civil rights go out the window in a state of war.

 

if one talks about killing people or bombing real people, that is a terrorist threat imo

and if they find bombs and stuff in their apartment when investigating, lock them up and throw away the key

.

 

You don't realize how dangerous your type of attitude is. You have no idea what type of society that will lead to.

No one should have the rights taken away unless (1) they carry out actions trying to harm someone, (2) they are caught paying someone else to harm someone, or (3) they make a direct, specific, and believable threat to try to coerce someone to do something

Trying to preemptively predict who's going to kill someone is going to involve taking away rights from people. More likely than anything, you're just going to anger some people in society that will lead to more crazies carrying out acts of violence.

 

When someone is posting material in support of terrorism and murder on a public internet site his privacy is not being violated. It is the duty of public officials to monitor this type of activity on the net just like they do for child molesters who operate on it. I do not see any constitutional issues here.

 

Oh by the way, if anyone thinks government is only going to use their capabilities to go after the bad guys, you'd be wrong.

This is only the first step on the road to curbing free speech and attempting to implement thought control.

 

no one has a right to say online that they are going to kill or bomb real people

 

I say they do.

The vast majority of threats never get carried out. I think there are only particular kinds of threats that should be punished; the ones that are very specific, and are likely to be taken seriously, and seek to try to coerce someone into doing something by threatening them.

 

A bit of a catch 22, if they don't arrest them people say "they knew about it and did nothing to protect the innocent" and if they do arrest them it's "they are abusing my rights!"

 

So what? How many people do they have to throw in prison to catch 1 real terrorist? 1000 ?
If you make threatening illegal, terrorists will still carry out their attacks, they just won't tell anyone before they do it. How stupid is that?

 

How about people just stop making bomb and killing threats... to me you do not have the right to threaten harm or kill others. The safety of innocent people takes precedence over your right to say you're going to kill someone.

 

Where's the wife of the Orlando club shooter?

 

it causes fear, if someone says they are gonna kill or bomb my family online... I want them in prison for a long time

.

 

Oh, and what other rights don't we have?

You said "bomb and killing threats", but you know all too well it wouldn't stop there. Any threats.
Putting limits on free speech can be a slippery slope.

Do you know how many violations of human rights throughout history were justified by "safety" ?
Do you know how the Nazis sold the German public on the idea of rounding up the Jews? (ok, a little extreme, but that's just one example)

Rights shouldn't be taken away unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. And creating the type of apparatus for these speech offenses to be enforced will effectively lead to control of all speech—there's no avoiding that.

- - - Updated - - -

What if I hacked into your Twitter account and posted something in your name?