(10-07-2021 05:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 10:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 03:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Weird bone to gnaw at here...
Did anything come out about his motives? That's the key part of whether something is an act of terror. You have thoughts on it?
No, I guess they were the usual motives that make sense to only the shooter. But motives are what defines a school board protester as a domestic terrorist? What if their motive is to secure the best possible education for their children?
Maybe you should look up the definition of domestic terrorist.
If you'd note, when we were having the conversation above, I was specifically noting about those threatening violence. So yes, if a parent is threatening violence against an elected official to achieve an agenda, I would characterize that as domestic terrorism.
If the person is just protesting for it, and not threatening violence, I would not.
Lad, you are aware of our own current AG Garland's previous counsel on the idea of 'threat' and the First Amendment, right?
The case law is crystal clear: the First Amendment protects even threatening speech --- until that speech unambiguously states for a use of force, with a clear intent to do so, and where the likelihood of violence is real and imminent.
Supposed 'threats' (even of specific acts of violence) are not actionable unless they meet this threshold. A very high threshold, to be clear. Does your NPR comment above stand as broad-based as I think it does, and if so, counter to the current understanding on 'threats'? I dont think so; it goes beyond 'think' to 'not in the slightest.' And what the memo does is entices people who understand zero about the actions based on speech and the very high thresholds to, use your own term, 'jump the shark' in labeling even the NPR comment as 'domestic terrorists'. Which is patently untrue.
Since you are all gung-ho about telling others to look up the definition of 'domestic terror[ist][ism]', it might be approriate for you at this juncture to look up the legal lines in the area of criminal speech and the limits placed on it due to the First Amendment.
I mean, you have continuously drawn a line at 'threats of violence', and cited the NPR factoid as what you mean as what should be 'investigated' and perhaps pursued under the memo. Hate to say, even that NPR-reported situation falls very short of the standard. So, do you want to revisit your blanket statement that states one 'threatening violence' should be viewed as a domestic terrorist given that background? Or do you, in light of this, view that statement, when interpreted to its fullest extent, now view the memo as that much more rhetoric that even more effectively slanders parents?
I can pretty much unambiguously throw the concepts of 'harassment' and 'intimidation' into the rhetorical dumpster. And, it looks like the term 'threat' may be at least in partial jeopardy over what is an is not actionable in light of the 1st Amendment. And that view, as it stands with the term 'threat' even in your statement above is being used in an extremely incorrect and overbroad view.
And yes, Garland knows this line in the term 'threat'. He has to know. He oversaw and counseled the prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, where even worse rhetoric that bitterly opposed and noted even more tangible and specific threats against Americans was in question -- and not pursued in the case. Simply based on the very basic premise of what a 'threat' is under the incitement context.
Im sorry, Garland is being fundamentally dishonest in his memo when it comes to 'harass', 'intimidate', and, after a little inspection, 'threat'. The fact that this memo has people like you citing examples like the NPR (which is fundamentally incorrect in its portrayal of the legal landscape) as a rationale for labeling parents 'domestic terrorists' just points out what the memo was intended to do. And apparently many swallowed this **** whole.
There is a lot going on here, and I think you’re mismatching comments I’ve made with your opinions, what the letter said, etc.
In regards to comments about domestic terrorism, I’ve not extended that past anyone who does anything less than threaten physical harm to others. That term should not be applied to someone who just protests or even harasses a public official. So being that the letter discusses a wide range of issues (from physical violence to intimidation) all instances discussed are not examples of domestic terrorism - only some of the instances are.
So some parents can be labeled as domestic terrorists - but only the subset that have threatened violence against school board members or have physically attacked them.
I have been reading about these incidences well before this memo came out, and the memo did not change my opinion on whether some of these parents could be defined that way. It’s not like I was unaware that school board meetings were getting heated and sometimes devolving to threats of violence or actual violence because of political views.
I don’t think the letter slanders parents, too. If a parent believes they need to tell a school board member that they need to watch their back, that parent is making the willful choice to cross a line and threaten another person with violence to try and change their vote/decision, and I don’t think we need to sugar coat what they are doing.
That said, if it just stops with calling them an idiot, telling them they’re wrong, they should be ashamed, whatever it is, and it doesn’t threaten them, that parent may just be uncivil, at worst.
Finally, I’ve not continually relied on the NPR factoid as what should be investigated - I provided it one time as an example of some instances that led to this memo, as OO wasn’t sure if these things were actually happening. Don’t extend the bounds of reality here.
I think it is clear that only those who commit violence *could* be defined as domestic terrorists.
I think it is clear that for a threat, it has to meet the standards set forth in the jurispudence. The person with the 'threat' in the NPR clip is within the First Amendment bounds. That is, the threat does not unambiguously call for a use of force, with a clear intent to do so, and where the likelihood of violence is real and imminent.
If you feel comfortable labeling people exercising rights under the First Amendment, please feel free to do so. That is effectively in the same rubric as saying 'hate speech has no protections'. It does. It is legal. And, under the ideals of the First Amendment, proper. It may be hurtful, crass, and despicable, but absolutely proper under the ideals of the First Amendment.
Accordingly, I have an issue with your very wide line of 'threaten physical violence' as the touching point. While grounded in a common sense notion that 'threatening violence' isnt 'good', or 'productive', or 'pleasant', it is way too wide of a line to draw. Unless the speech, on its face, meets the threshold as actionable.
Labeling anyone who simply 'threatens violence' that on its face doesnt meet that threshold as anywhere near the same boat as a 'domestic terrorist' is a kneejerk presumption. And that is what you have seemingly done with a very broad stroke. That is made above divorced from the DOJ letter.
The DOJ letter exacerbates the above to another level. In that letter, they have instigated not just the above standard, but have also pulled in 'intimidation' and 'harassment'.
And OOs point about the failure to label the summer rioters in the same fashion stands true. If there is the need to currently label or group a wide swath of protected speech and gathering rights under the rubric of 'domestic terrorism' (which the Garland letter does), then a vast extent of both the summer riots and the ongoing riots and protests emanating from Portland and Seattle should be similarly tagged. Or, should have been tagged at the outset as.
Quote:(I don’t see anything about legality in that memo, btw).
Two reasons -- a) only when there is actual violence against a pubic official can the power of the FBI be enjoined, or a nexus to actual violence by another party. The prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman (in the incitement charges) shows there has to be a nexus to an actual criminal act for a basis for Federal involvement.
b) there is no Federal 'terroristic threat' statute of any form. The FBI has zero basis with mere incitement all by its lonesome, or its poor younger brother terroristic threat (a difference between incitement, needs a real crime, and terroristic threat, where the threat is the act). And again, all terroristic threat statutes include the restrictions noted above (imminent body harm, blah blah bah). Which again, makes the comparison of the NPR caller to a domestic terrorist as specious, at the very best.
That is why Garland used the 'with consultation with state and local officials' in the letter.
Quote:That said, if it just stops with calling them an idiot, telling them they’re wrong, they should be ashamed, whatever it is, and it doesn’t threaten them, that parent may just be uncivil, at worst.
No offense, but what you have said here is that you really do not care about the protections of the 1st Amendment. I cannot buy into that. I think the line drawn with regards to where 'mere speech' is actionable has a solid basis. As crude, rude, and despicable a generalized threat is --- that is not actionable. And it should not be.
The BLM dude on the side of the street yelling 'all cops must die' is not breaking the law, nor is he/she a domestic terrorist, nor should they be made equivalent to one.
The parent at a school board meeting who states 'you all should be strung up' is not breaking the law, nor is he/she a domestic terrorist, nor should they be made equivalent to one.
But interestingly, when the Democratic party far left (and the Democrat party can be aptly described almost en toto as the far left presently) complains about that rudeness at a school board meeting, an obvious political stance, lo and behold watch AG Garland pop forth with a truly cringe-worthy letter that seeks to lump msot forms of that expression of opposition as akin to 'domestic terrorism'. And, I hate to say, then watch all the people uninformed about the state of speech and the law take up and defend that position with the utmost vigor. It is quite the spectacle.
And, with candor and respect, you are in that latter group to some extent when you draw that line rather haphazardly with broad 'threats of physical violence' being the touchstone initiator for this.
Quote:Finally, I’ve not continually relied on the NPR factoid as what should be investigated - I provided it one time as an example of some instances that led to this memo, as OO wasn’t sure if these things were actually happening. Don’t extend the bounds of reality here.
And in the course, that example is not really apt for your attempt to show speech that should be the focus of the letter. It falls well short of any language that could trigger any liability or action.
I have no doubt slurs, and generalized threats of violence are occurring. You are talking about what is being taught to people's kids, and driven by outsiders to that relationship. In short, the educators and the education system is intervening themselves in that parent/child cycle. A parent worth their damn *will* get to that level when they determine or feel their values are being subverted by third parties.\
And that is an instance that shouldnt even touch on that memo --- for the reasons stated above. The reasons for the memo should be proper reasons -- not rhetorical reasons when examined. And when examined under the proper lens, that example kind of crumbles away like a cheap Chinese made stoneware coffee mug.