Posted on 05/05/2024 9:51:30 AM PDT by logi_cal869
Protests roiling U.S. universities have ignited a fierce debate over where to set the limit between acceptable criticism of Israel and speech that encourages antisemitism and violence.
In France, government authorities are stepping in to draw the line. Courts have ruled that public speech condoning the Oct. 7 attack or legitimizing Hamas as a resistance movement amounts to condoning terrorism—a crime under French law, punishable by up to seven years in prison. French prosecutors are investigating politicians on the far-left, union officials and hundreds of other people for allegedly condoning terrorism and inciting antisemitism since October.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Don’t become just like them by thinking we should ban ANY speech.Never once have I suggested such. EVER.
Problem #2:
We’re BETTER than France because we allow free speech.Solely on the basis of the OP topic, I challenge that assertion on one fact:
The criminalization of verbal terrorist support - even though it may be supported by current statues/code - will NEVER happen because we ceased being a Democratic Republic in 2020.
It's patently obvious that DS has settled on this 'distraction scenario' to set up what's coming prior to November.
We 'ain't seen nothin' yet'...
France - where you are guilty until proven innocent.
Actually you very much suggested it “self-imposed idiocy while here in the U.S. our leaders wring their hands”
And you just suggested it again by saying it should be criminalized. It will never happen because that’s AGAINST THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
That's illuminating. /s I certainly never asserted as much.
At a minimum, until all Conservatives acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution bequeaths upon each and every one of us the responsibility to defend it - and hold complicit leaders, elected or otherwise - to account - including taking the fight directly to friends/family/neighbors - the eventual collapse of the U.S. as we 'knew' it is inevitable.
My post was meant to illustrate that the French leadership - apparently now self-aware - has taken seriously the threat to their own government/country.
The U.S. is so dysfunctional today that the only ones who are self-aware are labeled sources of misinformation, racists, bigots, etc. and domestic extremists.
Now action because of those words is generic action and may be a crime.
I think all "hate" crimes should be repealed. Charge people with the same underlying crimes and enforce the law!
TRUTH is more important. TRUTH is the foundation of freedom and America, as in “We hold these TRUTHS to be self-evident.”
it’s better to say, “We recognize FREEDOM TO SPEAK TRUTH as the most important thing in the word.”
Uh-huh. /s The fact is that you are oversimplifying my comment. I have NEVER suggested usurping the USC. EVER. To the contrary, and repeatedly. These protests are not about speech - my original comment never cited as such - but they have apparently made at least you believe it since you 'think' you found a bone; you couldn't be more wrong. SUCH is the effectiveness of their propaganda.
Ironically, under the ubiquitous Rules for Radicals promoted by the Zero cabal, those of us on the right are terrorized & persecuted by the left for merely for being on the right, let alone stating our case (e.g., the call from maxine waters et al to the left who, ironically, was never held to account for her words even though it calls for 'coercion' of civilians).
They are pushing us down a slippery slope and you're hedging the argument 'tomato' / 'tomahto' under the banner 'free speech'.
I must vehemently disagree.
Thus - just for you - I will elaborate:
So, when the looming collapse manifests and martial law is declared, who do you think is going to be criminalized:
Those supporting mooslims and the left (with tacit and/or direct support from our government),
...or those who oppose them?
Material support for anti-social actions & criminal order intended to, 1) intimidate or coerce civilians; or 2) affect government policy through coercion or intimidation; or 3) influence the government's conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping is itself criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 2331; the problem is whether that applies domestically. Frankly, it damned well ought to (i.e., 'criminalized'), but my recollection of a long-ago read of Patriot Act - something FAR more egregious than what you're citing in your comments - is now a bit clouded and I've got other responsibilities on my plate for today.
Strictly defined, the protesters' actions are terroristic and, thus, those who support them may be prosecuted under existing statutes...but certainly NOT under the current status quo.
THAT is the nature of my specific comment.
The so-called 'unacknowledged crimes' here are a combination of the takeover of universities, corruption of youth by the left and all organized at the behest of a conspiracy originating in Martha's Vineyard and in concert with both his cohort in Bedford Hills & other foreign enemies. I posted earlier about the organization behind these protests; it would be rather ignorant to not believe that there is money flowing to these protests and their organizers as well. That's 'material support' for terrorism.
As I clearly stated in a comment earlier this morning:
It’s not about the ‘students’ or, for that matter, the protesters at all.Maybe you just don't get the fact that the BLM BS was a trial run and that what's developing this month might just be the planned false flag to both turn the election in November AND seal our fate.
Petty disagreements on language over the protesters as we argue for/against defending the USC - rather than actually doing anything about it - is EXACTLY the type of infighting they seek to trigger...and this forum is chock full of it.
If we can't come to consensus on this, the USC and our Republic is doomed.
I'm one of those people, and have asked that on here to boot. They're words.
People have different truths. And what we don’t want is for the government to be deciding what is and isn’t true. That’s why the 1st has no restrictions, WILL NOT BE ABRIDGED.
The consensus is right there in the bill of rights. Do not abridge the freedom of speech.
YOU say they’re terroristic. But some parts of the government say YOU’RE terroristic. Which is why we don’t want the government making these restrictions. Anything they can use against Hamas sympathizers they can AND WILL use against YOU.
My God, you’re naive and boneheaded.
I’ll apologize when you post a photo of you out front ‘debating’ with those asshats without having either been beaten or jailed for daring to challenge them.
Easy enough to draw the line. If it results in violence, the violence is illegal. If the speaker inciting the violence committed an overt act to help the violence happen, such as passing out firebombs or providing building plans, they’re an accomplice. Otherwise, as soon as you have probable cause to predicate surveillance and you get a wiretap court ordered, and wait for an overt act that constitutes criminal conspiracy.
If it involves non-citizens, deport them and bar them for life.
Not at all naive. You’re the one that wants to give a government you say you don’t trust more power. And the one that feels the need to run to insults. So we both know the facts and logic don’t back you.
Do not give the government power to declare some speech “bad”. Nothing good comes from that.
Really go look around at the groups the FBI says are terrorists. Look at how many of those groups you’re sympathetic with. How many you say things in support of. Then LEARN why your idea is just plain bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.