politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Your examples are entirely off topic. To arrest or search you, they need probable cause, under the 4th amendment. Unquestionable admission of a crime, like "I stabbed him", hands them that probable cause. That has nothing to do with 1st amendment protections. Also whether or not they have the authority to search your freezer would be entirely dependent on if they can get a judge to agree that there is probable cause to think there is a body on your property and sign a warrant. They can't just search your freezer because they heard you say, generally, that you stabbed someone.
They can unintrusively investigate anything that is publically available to them to find suspicious activity that may indicate a crime has occurred or may occur. That's all fine. But anything done without legal cause to chill protected speech by the government that is not due to basic time, place, and manner restrictions applied in a content-neutral way is a violation of the constitution.
The investigation is not the problem so long as they didn't violate his 4th amendment rights in the process. But coming to his home to tell him that he was being investigated due to the criticisms he'd voiced is a clear attempt at intimidation to quell future speech. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
Say, perhaps like... something you've posted on facebook? Is that the kind of unobtrusive investigation of publicly available information you mean?
(Everything else broadly seems to be restating what I've already said, so I'm not super sure what your goal is in bringing this up was. Yes, what we know of the investigation likely was not a violation of the 4th amendment (or any other statute) except in that it was clearly done to intimidate - something that is unfortunately fairly difficult to prove.)
You were the one equating the investigation of someone admitting to murder by looking in their freezer with the investigation of Facebook posts.
And the intimidation is not hard to prove. If the effect of their conduct is chilling protected speech for a reasonable person, then it's unconstitutional. Intent is not necessary.
Yes, I sure was! Because, while both describe different avenues for protected speech to be investigated, both are the result of protected speech being investigated. There is no functional legal difference between either example of speech - both are constitutionally protected, and unless you were violating other laws (say something super legit, like 'disturbing the peace', anti-harassment orders, the list is long) it would be illegal for the police to prevent you from saying it.
That is what protected speech entails - it does not absolve you of potential consequences of that speech (the classic example is "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater", but my above examples of confessing to a murder/crime apply as well), it just means you cannot be prevented from speaking it
Are you sure about that? It's really quite a high standard of evidence in a biased court system to demonstrate police harassment or intimidation or what have you at the federal level. There are far harder things to prove sure, but it's solidly not on the "Easy" end of the spectrum.