You're acting like we can't see your original comment anymore. The words are right there, "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings'". You weren't referencing any crime or investigation, you said that the wrong speech makes you an enemy of the state.
The FBI, by nature, investigates crimes, that doesn't need to be said.
To quote my other post:
I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category. It’s not moral judgment, it’s operational triage.
>speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial category
Yeah, and that idea is fundamentally in opposition to free speech. A person shouldn't become a government adversary because of their speech. If they threaten violence or some other immediate harm, the government can investigate. But simply voicing opposition should never result in a government crackdown.
You're hyperbolizing and mischaracterizing events to fit a delusional victimhood narrative.
1) No one prevented anyone from engaging in free speech.
2) In this case "government adversary" just means you may become person of interest, not a criminal to be charged. Free speech doesn't exempt you from that.
3) No "government crackdown" occurred. A conversation or interview isn’t a crackdown, it’s routine fact-finding. No arrests, charges, or penalties followed for this individual.
You're in favor of a police state and see nothing wrong with law enforcement "just asking questions" over someone exercising their right to free speech. Got it. I, too, think we should send police to question dissenters because how could they not like the current regime?
Throwing around words like ‘police state’ and ‘regime’ makes you sound paranoid. No one is being questioned for speech alone, only when it relates to a possible crime. If you have evidence otherwise, show it. If not, you’re just being dramatic.
> Throwing around words like ‘police state’ and ‘regime’
When agents are coming to your house after a protest (how did they even find your identity?) to ask questions then I'd say it's fair to call it that. Remember, we've lived under a surveillance state since Bush and 9/11; a police state is a logical step once an authoritarian comes into power.
> No one is being questioned for speech alone, only when it relates to a possible crime
And the "possible crime" is what here? If he was being interrogated for a possible crime, he wouldn't be free to leave and they would need to read him his rights.
It’s unreasonable to assume the FBI is doing anything but investigating crime without evidence. The man was voluntarily interviewed because his name came up in an investigation. Most interviewees are leads, not suspects. People are mistaking routine inquiries for persecution. Saying “we’re investigating the protest” is like saying “we’re investigating the football game.” It refers to related incidents, not the activity itself.
It's not unreasonable, you can read the NSPM-7[0][1] which is an overarching strategy for agencies like the FBI to follow.
NSPM-7 directs a new national strategy to “disrupt” any individual or groups “that foment political violence,” including “before they result in violent political acts.”
In other words, they’re targeting pre-crime, to reference Minority Report.
The whole order is pretty dystopian, using loose labels like "anti-Americanism", "anti-capitalism", "anti-Christianity", and "extremism on migration" as indicators of an extremist.
NSPM-7 isn’t a license for thought policing. It’s an investigative strategy for identifying actual criminal activity within the bounds of existing law and oversight.
Referencing Minority Report is a false analogy that ignores the film’s real controversy, which was about punishing people for crimes that hadn’t happened, not investigating credible threats.
There are no new federal crimes being prosecuted that are tied to speech. Investigations still operate under existing law targeting criminal conduct, not expression.
You seem to think that monitoring rhetoric is inherently authoritarian, but it isn’t. Those markers are used to flag potential risks, not to criminalize beliefs. The strategy is about identifying when ideology begins translating into real-world violence, which is a basic and necessary function of law enforcement, not government overreach.
