(10-06-2021 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 09:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 09:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Can you explain to me how these comments constitute a "war on parents"?

These are specifically about school boards. Who protests at school board meetings?

So if parents are verbally threatening violence against elected officials, any action by a law enforcement agency is a war on parents because the people doing the threatening are parents?

Would the same rule apply to a parent who killed a school board member? You know, police arresting them and charging them for murder would be a "War Against Parents"?

Also, are you against the FBI investigating threats against public officials?

Perhaps when you look at the letter, it is amazingly broad. It covers 'harassment'. Since when is 'harassment' a Federal crime?

Further Garland claims that free-speech principles must yield when they represent “efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.” Seriously?

Think Maxine Waters? Think the current campaign against Manchin and Sinema. What Maxine Waters said re: Trump and the right is fairly protected under the 1st amendment. As are the dudes that rowed to Manchin's houseboat. As are the people that accosted Sinema in the airport. The stuff in the restroom is probably violative of a couple of laws, mind you.

But yet now the line Garland draws is “efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.” I suggest Garland look at Berkley as a whole and how that school, and the various activist students literally shut down and "intimidate individuals based on their views.” So yes, the Garland letter seeks itself to intimidate proper and lawful discourse directed at school boards.

He didnt limit the coverage to 'violence'.

The interesting thing is that when at the DOJ, Garland counseled that the First Amendment protects speech unless it unambiguously calls for the use of force that the speaker clearly intends, under circumstances in which the likelihood of violence is real and imminent. Even actual “threats of violence” are not actionable unless they meet this high threshold.

Now? Now he backtracks and tries to muzzle stuff he previously stood in defense of, and even more extremely tries to push the line even further in the direction of muzzling.

Here, Garland isn’t trying to protect Muslims, an insular minority group, from harsh criticism. He’s trying to protect politicians (but again not Sinema, Manchin, or any Republican) from harsh criticism by their constituents. That is the issue underlying the letter and its language.

Thank the living gods Garland wasnt placed on SCOTUS, based on this.

Here is a nice back and forth between Senator Hawley and Lisa Monaco, the Deputy Attorney General on this. Watch as she always lies that the letter only addresses 'violence'.

Ah, this is the good stuff. So the issue to you is that the direction from the DOJ is overly broad? That is extends past violence/threats of violence into a murky area of "intimidation"?

And not just into 'intimidation'. It explicitly expands the issue to 'harassment'.

I dont think there is any issue with the letter had it been limited to 'violence'. Zero. And, had it been limited to violence, I dont think there would be anyone at odds with it. There shouldnt be.

But, it isnt limited. Explicitly so, actually.

Garland is a smart guy. Smart enough to know the bounds of the 1st Amendment. I think Federal Circuit *and* what he particularly did at DOJ should attest to that.

His expansion beyond 'violence' is stupid at a surface level. Pretty rank when you consider the depth that he has been with that/those subjects.

His expansion beyond 'violence' is, mildly put, rank stupid, baseless, and a disgusting power play.