Time for a National Police Force to Protect Free Speech?

Printable View

10-11-2019, 05:49 PM
Lewkowski

Time for a National Police Force to Protect Free Speech?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/3940441002/

"MINNEAPOLIS – Supporters and protesters clashed Thursday night outside the Target Center after a rally for President Donald Trump.

Some threw urine in the streets and a small fire was quickly extinguished by police.

The protest began in the afternoon with various immigrant, women's and anti-war groups assembling against the president as Trump supporters lined to enter the venue.

Demonstrators blew whistles, chanted and drummed early in the gathering before tensions rose later in the night.

At about 9:30 p.m., a national correspondent for Fox News tweeted a video of protesters burning hats with Trump's slogan, MAGA (Make America Great Again).

Around 10 p.m., a Washington Post national correspondent posted a video of protesters going after a man identified as a Nazi."

Stories like this where the local municipalities don't end up charging domestic terrorists due to politics really begs the need to create a national police force and prosecution arm designed solely to eliminate the threats of violence against those who want to use their 1st amendment rights.

This shouldn't be a right or left thing. It is fine to protest abortion providers but if you step over the line and actually throw urine at women trying to enter the facility you should face harsh penalties. And just because the locality leans Right and refuses to press charges against those harassing women entering Planned Parenthood doesn't mean the criminals should avoid justice. And vice versa as well - just because a DA team is sympathetic to Antifa doesn't mean they should be able to get sweet heart deals (like when antifa professor hitting people in the back of the head with a bike lock getting no jail time).

The advantage of this type of federal police force is many.

1. Eliminates local biases. Both for prosecutors and the police.
2. Eliminates costs for municipalities - who often use that excuse to deny permits for free speech activities that require security due to rampaging leftist mobs.
3. Preserves American freedoms of free expression.

While I'm always wary of federal encroachment of state and city rights since the principal of local government is important, it is clear the current status quo isn't working. No one should have to fear for their safety simply for wearing a Hillary T-Shirt or a MAGA hat. Every rational person should agree to that much at least.
10-12-2019, 01:18 AM
Loki

Impracticality aside (how do you know where to put these police officers?), this would be unconstitutional.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poli...itutional_law)
10-12-2019, 01:36 AM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Impracticality aside (how do you know where to put these police officers?), this would be unconstitutional.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poli...itutional_law)

Don't tell the FBI lol.

And it wouldn't be impractical - certain events will draw the eye and violent protesters. For example: TX Draw Mohammad Cartoon event. (Still such a happy story). Anytime anyone right of Biden speaks in Portland. Trump campaign rallies.
10-12-2019, 06:47 PM
LittleFuzzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Impracticality aside (how do you know where to put these police officers?), this would be unconstitutional.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poli...itutional_law)

What do you mean, of course it's constitutional. So long as a Republican is in office, of course. If it's a Democrat in office it's horrific federal overreach, an assault on states rights, and an invasion of the freedom of the US people.
10-12-2019, 08:07 PM
Aimless

Presume existing laws already prohibit throwing urine at people against their will. Making urine-throwing a federal crime that has to be tried at a national level is just dumbass fash-fappery.
10-12-2019, 10:15 PM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless

Presume existing laws already prohibit throwing urine at people against their will. Making urine-throwing a federal crime that has to be tried at a national level is just dumbass fash-fappery.

When local law enforcement (due to typically the mayor of a liberal city) refuse to enforce the law - what normally occurs? See the American history (Little Rock Nine) on what the response is.

Murder was already a crime in every state but that didn't stop federal laws on hate crime related murders. There exists room to have federal legislation be used when individuals use political violence to suppress political views of their opponents.

If some shitty town in Alabama refuses to prosecute abortion protesters who throw urine at women going to Planned Parenthood, what is your solution?
10-15-2019, 05:21 AM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Murder was already a crime in every state but that didn't stop federal laws on hate crime related murders. There exists room to have federal legislation be used when individuals use political violence to suppress political views of their opponents.

That's actually a good point! But you conflated terms before defining them -- like political violence, suppression, or harm -- before calling for a National Police Force to Protect Free Speech. :haha:

Might as well call for a Ministry of Civil Harmony and Peace to approve every public gathering or protest. Maybe they should also 'review' every web site, blog, cable TV show, and movie....because it might lead to dissent and protest. Burning American flags or MAGA hats, throwing urine in the streets, "Free Speech" can be dangerous dissent! Right, Comrade? :donkey:
10-15-2019, 06:23 AM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

That's actually a good point! But you conflated terms before defining them -- like political violence, suppression, or harm -- before calling for a National Police Force to Protect Free Speech. :haha:

Might as well call for a Ministry of Civil Harmony and Peace to approve every public gathering or protest. Maybe they should also 'review' every web site, blog, cable TV show, and movie....because it might lead to dissent and protest. Burning American flags or MAGA hats, throwing urine in the streets, "Free Speech" can be dangerous dissent! Right, Comrade? :donkey:

The police force wouldn't be approving gatherings. They would be used to prevent gatherings from being assaulted. They would be used to protect people speaking out (or for) the government.
10-15-2019, 06:57 AM
GGT

Just admit you're a Fascist and stop trolling. :bored:
10-15-2019, 05:02 PM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Just admit you're a Fascist and stop trolling. :bored:

Yup I'm such a fascist I want people to speak freely in the public square without being attacked.
10-16-2019, 03:18 AM
LittleFuzzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Yup I'm such a fascist I want people to speak freely in the public square without being attacked.

No you don't. You also want to forbid the public square to protestors and other liberals. When it's conservative causes you say "free speech." When it's not conservative causes you declare it's rioting or public nuisance and want the police (presumably including these fancy new guys you're suggesting) to disperse them with tear gas or "a whiff of grapeshot"
10-16-2019, 05:01 AM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

No you don't. You also want to forbid the public square to protestors and other liberals. When it's conservative causes you say "free speech." When it's not conservative causes you declare it's rioting or public nuisance and want the police (presumably including these fancy new guys you're suggesting) to disperse them with tear gas or "a whiff of grapeshot"

Nah I've always been consistent. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. What they *don't* have a right to is blocking people's path and preventing entry to a location. You want to protest a store? That's fine but you can't accost people trying to enter.

The law most treat all gatherings equal. Want to protest an abortion center? That's fine but you don't get to prevent people from going in. Want to protest Wal-mart? That's fine but you don't get to prevent people from going in.

You don't have the right to destroy property. You don't have the right to assault people. I don't get why you don't understand this Fuzzy.
10-20-2019, 12:16 AM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Nah I've always been consistent. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. What they *don't* have a right to is blocking people's path and preventing entry to a location. You want to protest a store? That's fine but you can't accost people trying to enter.

But people in right-to-carry gun states like Texas can wear an assault rifle during a protest. That might not be a *direct* block, but the intimidation has the same result. What's your National Police Force to Protect Free Speech gonna do about those "good guys with guns"? :rolleyes:
10-20-2019, 01:14 AM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

But people in right-to-carry gun states like Texas can wear an assault rifle during a protest. That might not be a *direct* block, but the intimidation has the same result. What's your National Police Force to Protect Free Speech gonna do about those "good guys with guns"? :rolleyes:

Texas is open carry. Though depending on the location of the protest it is restricted. Open carry walking down the street or at a protest is fine - guns are all around you anyway.
10-20-2019, 04:45 AM
GGT

Guns all around is just fine.....but you want a National Police Force to arrest people throwing urine? :confused:
10-20-2019, 04:48 AM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Guns all around is just fine.....but you want a National Police Force to arrest people throwing urine? :confused:

Cars all around just fine... trucks of peace have shown how easy it can be used to murder people. Do you want to ban those too? The difference between holding a gun and throwing urine is that one has brought harm to someone while the other has not.
10-20-2019, 05:02 AM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Cars all around just fine... trucks of peace have shown how easy it can be used to murder people. Do you want to ban those too? The difference between holding a gun and throwing urine is that one has brought harm to someone while the other has not.

Is this how you teach morality to your own child?
10-20-2019, 05:53 AM
LittleFuzzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Nah I've always been consistent. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. What they *don't* have a right to is blocking people's path and preventing entry to a location. You want to protest a store? That's fine but you can't accost people trying to enter.

The law most treat all gatherings equal. Want to protest an abortion center? That's fine but you don't get to prevent people from going in. Want to protest Wal-mart? That's fine but you don't get to prevent people from going in.

You don't have the right to destroy property. You don't have the right to assault people. I don't get why you don't understand this Fuzzy.

I understand it just fine. I understand that you lie. You lie to us and you lie to yourself. I understand that you didn't say boo about militia types blocking roads during the Bundy confrontation in Nevada, for instance. You were active on the forum but you didn't make so much as a single post on that topic. And we all know why.
10-21-2019, 01:36 AM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I understand it just fine. I understand that you lie. You lie to us and you lie to yourself. I understand that you didn't say boo about militia types blocking roads during the Bundy confrontation in Nevada, for instance. You were active on the forum but you didn't make so much as a single post on that topic. And we all know why.

Ah yes not saying something clearly shows my views. When asked I unequivocally called them yahoos that should have been arrested and I don't recall specifically but I believe I mentioned at that juncture that the idiot who got killed was a good shoot by the LEOs involved. You know prior to my Blizzard post on China I don't think I said a single thing about HK. Am I Chinese puppet like Lebron now too?

Come to think of it Fuzzy did you say anything about Joaquin Arambula. Can we then presume you are OK with child molesters if they have a D next to their party affiliation? See how stupid that is?
10-21-2019, 01:37 AM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Is this how you teach morality to your own child?

You know throwing urine hasn't really came up, fairly certain he already knows that would be quite the reprehensible act. But I guess I better chat with him about it, wouldn't want him to turn out to be an ANTIFA terrorist.
10-25-2019, 10:59 PM
Dreadnaught

Yes, we need thousands of troops marching in the streets to promote free speech. :|
10-25-2019, 11:21 PM
Lewkowski

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Yes, we need thousands of troops marching in the streets to promote free speech. :|

It wouldn't need to be thousands at one time in one area. Allow the organization to also deputize local police force over municipality authority objections and its even easier.
10-26-2019, 03:47 AM
Aimless

More fascism is always easier, yes.
10-26-2019, 12:49 PM
Dreadnaught

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

It wouldn't need to be thousands at one time in one area. Allow the organization to also deputize local police force over municipality authority objections and its even easier.

I don't think that works without dissolving federalism.