The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism

[struth]

That same video shows it didn't.

um not really

 

[struth]

Public servants by the very nature of their job are not doxxable since you're supposed to know who they are. A free and democratic society doesn't live with unidentifiable masked men roaming the streets, disappearing ppl into vans under the so called authority of the federal government. That's Russia, that's Iran, that's North Korea.

Of course they are doxxable. You have no right to know where a police officer, judge, clerk, whoever lives, who their family is, their private phone numbers, their SSN, without their consent and harass them

A police officer, or federal agent, certainly has the right to wear a mask...in particular in the winter in MN....tell me who's disappeared?

 

[berg80]

It's not a drift at this point, it's a headlong charge.

The thinly veiled transparency of characterizing protesters as terrorists for the purposes of justifying law enforcement action against protests is crystal clear.

 

[berg80]

So, what you’re saying is, that violence is justified as long as it’s against Trump?

It appears you need a remedial reading comprehension class.

 

[j-mac]

It appears you need a remedial reading comprehension class.

Of course, because you never say what you mean.

 

[krichton]

Except that’s wrong. Just because you’re a public officer doesn’t mean you give up your right to privacy and safety. This is part of the reason why these agents are wearing masks and no identification is because the left are trying to expose their names and addresses, which put them and their families in danger.

Except it's not. Public servants, by their definition, serve the public. Their names and identities are not supposed to be shrouded in secret. If that were the case, why don't we hide the names of judges, of district attorneys, of police, of our lawmakers and everyone who works in local and state government, for "safety" reasons. Let's have zero accountability. You people are ridiculous with your desperate grab for any kind of dictatorship, but i got news for you, we live in a democracy and power exchanges hands constantly. You're not going to like living in a dictatorship when the other side is in power.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Protest has drifted into terrorism. There is no killing someone and then screaming freedom of speech.

 

[krichton]

Of course they are doxxable. You have no right to know where a police officer, judge, clerk, whoever lives, who their family is, their private phone numbers, their SSN, without their consent and harass them

A police officer, or federal agent, certainly has the right to wear a mask...in particular in the winter in MN....tell me who's disappeared?

Then we should do away with the first amendment if filming a public figure will reveal all of that. We should remove names of judges, police officers, federal agents, lawmakers, etc from any public records since arrests and trials will all be in secret moving forward. How convenient for future authoritarian governments. You make the perfect case for a police state. You maga right wingers always end up revealing your true agenda.

 

[toobfreak]

The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism​

TYPO: I think what you mean is the dangerous drift in trying to redefine domestic terrorism and lawlessness as mere protest--- worse--- protests which are protected free speech.

---by the very same people who incited J6 to a riot then labelled what began as a mere supportive protest of Pence over the highly dubious 2020 rigged election and renaming it as an attempt to overthrow democracy--- while justifying the assassination of a totally non-violent unarmed Vet as: "she deserved death."

 

[toobfreak]

I get so confused with this rapidly changing nation of ours.
Riots are now mostly peaceful protests.
Terrorism is now just protesting.

Where you get confused Meister is that riots are only peaceful protests when the Left do them, and terrorism is now just protected, harmless protesting when democrats do them.

If you peacefully protest now, that is still a riot to the Left.

If you protest for a just cause, that is still terrorism to the Left.

And if you are a totally unarmed vet peacefully looking through a doorway, you still deserve to die without warning, just as you deserved to die by controlling your own body by not taking the dangerous covid vaccine.

You know, just as how every pro-choice leftard out there demands is their right when ending a life.

 

[fncceo]

 

[struth]

Then we should do away with the first amendment if filming a public figure will reveal all of that. We should remove names of judges, police officers, federal agents, lawmakers, etc from any public records since arrests and trials will all be in secret moving forward. How convenient for future authoritarian governments. You make the perfect case for a police state. You maga right wingers always end up revealing your true agenda.

The first amendment doesn’t give you the right to harass people

And nobody said you didn’t have a right to film people, you dot. Have a right to dox them

 

[ThisIsMe]

Except it's not. Public servants, by their definition, serve the public. Their names and identities are not supposed to be shrouded in secret. If that were the case, why don't we hide the names of judges, of district attorneys, of police, of our lawmakers and everyone who works in local and state government, for "safety" reasons. Let's have zero accountability. You people are ridiculous with your desperate grab for any kind of dictatorship, but i got news for you, we live in a democracy and power exchanges hands constantly. You're not going to like living in a dictatorship when the other side is in power.

If you all started doxxing and attacking judges and DAs, and started threatening their lives, they probably would go anonymous.

Ice agents are under attack from liberals and under threat from cartel members. Do you not think they should be protected?

 

[Hafar1014]

When college students sat down at segregated lunch counters in 1960, they were breaking the law. They trespassed on private property, refused police orders to disperse, and sometimes violated court injunctions specifically designed to stop their demonstrations. In an effort to maintain public order, local authorities arrested them by the hundreds and charged them with disturbing the peace.

But these students were also exercising their constitutional rights.

This paradox—that civil disobedience can be simultaneously illegal and constitutionally protected—has been a constant source of tension in the U.S. But how the law talks about it has changed. Increasingly, the language of national security is creeping into spaces once governed by public-order statutes and First Amendment doctrine. We are no longer debating whether protesters who break the law should face charges. The new question is whether they should be investigated as terrorists.

What happened in Minneapolis—and what threatens to happen more broadly—reveals how quickly that transformation can occur, and why it should alarm anyone who cares about democratic dissent.
We have been here before, repeatedly. In his comprehensive study “Perilous Times,” legal historian Geoffrey Stone traces a recurring American pattern: Perceived crisis triggers expanded executive power—which gets directed not just at genuine threats but at unpopular dissent—until the crisis passes and retrospective analysis reveals how badly we overreacted.

The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism

The line between civil disobedience and terrorism is collapsing. History warns us what comes next.

www.lawfaremedia.org

The alarm is especially pertinent given the regime's penchant for authoritarian governance. Something it has made no secret of in threatening to invoke the Sedition Act to stifle political dissent and criticism from American citizens.

The entire article is a worthy read.

Violent organized funded protest is terrorism

 

[hadit]

When college students sat down at segregated lunch counters in 1960, they were breaking the law. They trespassed on private property, refused police orders to disperse, and sometimes violated court injunctions specifically designed to stop their demonstrations. In an effort to maintain public order, local authorities arrested them by the hundreds and charged them with disturbing the peace.

But these students were also exercising their constitutional rights.

This paradox—that civil disobedience can be simultaneously illegal and constitutionally protected—has been a constant source of tension in the U.S. But how the law talks about it has changed. Increasingly, the language of national security is creeping into spaces once governed by public-order statutes and First Amendment doctrine. We are no longer debating whether protesters who break the law should face charges. The new question is whether they should be investigated as terrorists.

What happened in Minneapolis—and what threatens to happen more broadly—reveals how quickly that transformation can occur, and why it should alarm anyone who cares about democratic dissent.
We have been here before, repeatedly. In his comprehensive study “Perilous Times,” legal historian Geoffrey Stone traces a recurring American pattern: Perceived crisis triggers expanded executive power—which gets directed not just at genuine threats but at unpopular dissent—until the crisis passes and retrospective analysis reveals how badly we overreacted.

The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism

The line between civil disobedience and terrorism is collapsing. History warns us what comes next.

www.lawfaremedia.org

The alarm is especially pertinent given the regime's penchant for authoritarian governance. Something it has made no secret of in threatening to invoke the Sedition Act to stifle political dissent and criticism from American citizens.

The entire article is a worthy read.

Those students at the counters, did they harm anyone? Did they throw things at people, burn down buildings with people inside them, attack people walking on the sidewalk, simply for wearing the wrong color hat?

 

[hadit]

I get so confused with this rapidly changing nation of ours.
Riots are now mostly peaceful protests.
Terrorism is now just protesting.
Well......let me know when the next redefining of a situation pops up.

It will just as soon as the other side regains power, then all of a sudden, the whole narrative shifts.

 

[krichton]

The first amendment doesn’t give you the right to harass people

And nobody said you didn’t have a right to film people, you dot. Have a right to dox them

People have a constitutional right to protest. I know you hate that, since you're for the police state, but until this is changed, then the "harassment" will continue.

When you fools say, "doxxing" what you are really referring to is the filming, nothing else. Let's be serious here.

 

[struth]

People have a constitutional right to protest. I know you hate that, since you're for the police state, but until this is changed, then the "harassment" will continue.

When you fools say, "doxxing" what you are really referring to is the filming, nothing else. Let's be serious here.

Where did you get the idea I hate a good protest? I don’t

Harassment can lead to criminal charges it’s not protesting

No doxxing as a definition

Look it up before you end up in jail

 

[krichton]

If you all started doxxing and attacking judges and DAs, and started threatening their lives, they probably would go anonymous.

Ice agents are under attack from liberals and under threat from cartel members. Do you not think they should be protected?

There is no need to "dox" a judge or DA. Everyone already knows who they are. That's what it means to live in a free society. There isn't a single judge or DA who hides their identity!!

ICE agents weren't under attack in March when the face mask and no badge policy was instituted. They did it because they knew what they were doing was wrong. That's the whole point of masking and having a secret police.

 

[krichton]

Where did you get the idea I hate a good protest? I don’t

Harassment can lead to criminal charges it’s not protesting

No doxxing as a definition

Look it up before you end up in jail

Yeah, you want the right to protest for your side, you just don't want anyone else the right to do so.

So can kidnapping someone off street and driving off with them in a white van, so can dragging someone out of their car for no reason, so can shooting someone in the back for no reason. These are all crimes, for anyone else, but the Trump gestapo. That's why people are reacting the way they are.

If I end up in jail for filming the masked gestapo and Maga calls it doxxing, i'm not the one who needs to look up the definition.