afavour 5 days ago

To intimidate. They're probably quite aware they'll lose in court. But in the mean time they might discourage some folks from turning out on the street.

JoshTriplett 5 days ago

Are you under the impression that the current administration cares about what the law says?

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect"

tptacek 5 days ago

They're "investigating", presumably with data gleaned from arrests and CIs; you have a right to speech, and a right not to be prosecuted for speech, but a much, much narrower right not to be "investigated", collapsing to ~epsilon when the investigation involves data the FBI already has.

  • janalsncm 5 days ago

    Yeah whenever people say “the first amendment is not a freedom from consequences” it is only a freedom from certain consequences (and that freedom only goes as far as the government is willing to protect it). It is a freedom from being convicted. They can still arrest you, you can still spend time in jail, prosecutors can even file charges. A court is supposed to throw those charges out. And in extreme cases you can be convicted and sent to prison for years before SCOTUS rules.

    • tptacek 5 days ago

      Nobody has been charged.

      • jakelazaroff 5 days ago

        I think GP is speaking generally, not with regard to this situation specifically; obviously people have been charged for constitutionally-protected speech before.

  • andreygrehov 5 days ago

    No. According to the latest reports, while searching for ICE vehicles, the protesters are unlawfully scanning license plates, which strongly suggests they are receiving insider help.

    • anigbrowl 5 days ago

      There is nothing unlawful about scanning license plates. You are allowed to photograph them in the same way you are allowed to stand around writing them into a notebook if that activity is your idea of fun. Where do people get these ideas?!

      • tptacek 5 days ago

        I think the idea was that they were getting people associated with Minnesota DPS to do lookups on the plates.

    • derbOac 5 days ago

      "Unlawfully scanning license plates"? What does that even mean?

      Like searching a vehicle database? That's available to all sorts of people, like auto body repair shops.

      Taking a photo of a license plate? Nothing illegal about that.

      • andreygrehov 5 days ago

        You're confusing 'seeing a license plate' with 'querying restricted databases'.

        Taking a photo is legal. Running plates through law-enforcement/ALPR systems is not, and auto body shops don't have that access.

        Real-time identification != observation - it implies unauthorized data access.

    • janalsncm 5 days ago

      Can you rule out the much less technically advanced explanation that this information was crowdsourced? And people are simply observing the license plates that are plainly displayed?

      Frankly I don’t think it should have to come to license plate numbers. In a free society law enforcement should clearly identify themselves as such. We should not need secret police.

      • andreygrehov 5 days ago

        No, I cannot. One of the undercover journalists was in their group for days.

        > Frankly I don’t think it should have to come to license plate numbers. In a free society law enforcement should clearly identify themselves as such. We should not need secret police.

        None of that matters _today_, because _today_ the law is different.

[removed] 5 days ago
[deleted]
hackyhacky 5 days ago

When has the constitution mattered to this administration?

therobots927 5 days ago

[flagged]

  • JumpCrisscross 5 days ago

    No, they haven’t. This kind of advocacy crosses from lazy nihilism to negligence.

    • [removed] 5 days ago
      [deleted]
    • dragonwriter 5 days ago

      > > > Why is our tax money being wasted on this?

      > > The fascists won. That’s why?

      > No, they haven’t.

      Yes, they did, that’s why they are able to use the executive branch of the federal government to enforce their wishes at the moment, with virtually no constraint yet from the legislative branch, and no significant consequences yet for ignoring contrary orders from the judicial branch.

      They may lose at some point in the future, but something that might happen in the future is irrelevant to the question of why what is happening now is happening, and it is happening because they won. Unambiguously.

      • SR2Z 5 days ago

        They are not able to enforce their will unchecked. The legislature is more than willing to turn on Trump when he crosses the line, hence the whole idea of "TACO."

        The fascists haven't won because if they did, they would be killing a lot more dissidents in the street. They killed two and the public outcry is so angry that Kristi Noem might be impeached. Democrats are willing to shut down the government to starve ICE if they have to. Even GOP legislators are criticizing Trump, which is a dangerous activity for any Republican looking to keep their seat.

    • anigbrowl 5 days ago

      They inarguably won the last election and control 2 branches of government.

      • JumpCrisscross 5 days ago

        > They inarguably won the last election and control 2 branches of government

        Elected branches. Subject to further contests in months. That’s now how fascists endgame.

        It’s stupid and wrong to claim fascists have won in America. The only people peddling this lie are fascists who can read polls.

        • anigbrowl 5 days ago

          I'm not arguing they've won forever, but having the executive branch and a majority (albiet not a an opposition-proof supermajority) in the legislative branch is significant. I would say MAGA is well represented at the state level also.

          I hope the midterms go smoothly and the GOP loses heavily at the polls and legislative power changes hands in January, but I'm not 100% confident of that any more.

    • therobots927 5 days ago

      I should’ve clarified. They won the 2024 election. And the democrats are controlled opposition who take money from fascists. For all intents and purposes they have won. That may not be a permanent state of affairs.

      • JohnFen 5 days ago

        I don't think it makes sense to call winners and losers before the battle is anywhere close to being over.

    • 8note 5 days ago

      i think it sets the framing that beating them back is from a losing position rather than equal.

      if you want the fascists to un-win, you need to treat the world as it is: the fascists are ascendent.

Sparkle-san 5 days ago

Because too many people dismissed the claims that electing Trump would lead to a fascist administration as alarmist. Turns out he meant every word he said during his campaign.

randallsquared 5 days ago

Conspiracy to commit a crime is typically not included in protected speech. Whether you think that's happening here will depend mostly on what side you take, I suspect.

  • neogodless 5 days ago
    • mycodendral 5 days ago

      18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer

      Freedom of expression does not include freedom from prosecution for real crimes.

      • germinalphrase 5 days ago

        “ If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both”

      • nkohari 5 days ago

        You keep commenting to cite this statute when you clearly have not actually read what it says. Peaceful protest is explicitly protected by the first amendment.

        • mycodendral 5 days ago

          The statute defines a crime that is distinguishable from peaceful protest/1A. You are free to interpret that however you like in relation to what is occurring.

    • zahlman 5 days ago

      [flagged]

      • neogodless 4 days ago

        We are referring to peaceful protest and assembly, which are protected rights, not crimes. You can have a huge group chat or take out a huge billboard and announce your protest. There's no crime to discuss here.

        • zahlman 4 days ago

          You can refer to what you like, but we have seen the actions of protesters thus far on video.

  • JKCalhoun 5 days ago

    Interesting that there would be people on a "side" that think there was a conspiracy to commit a crime. What crime?

    • direwolf20 5 days ago

      Interference with a law enforcement investigation?

    • rexpop 5 days ago

      It's a crime.

      What do you have against crime?

      Nonviolent political action is often criminalized.

    • mycodendral 5 days ago

      18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer

      • baerrie 5 days ago

        This refers to physical impediments. Spreading legal information is not an impediment, it is free speech. If all info could be interpreted as impediments to federal officers then phones, the internet, the human voice, etc would be illegal

    • mindslight 5 days ago

      In the fascist's mind, anything that isn't supporting Dear Leader's vision of "greatness" is a crime.

    • PrettiGoodDead 5 days ago

      [flagged]

      • mrtesthah 5 days ago

        We already know that "doxxing" on its own is not a crime, and moreover that [non-undercover] federal agents are not entitled to keep their identities secret.

        We also know that legal observation and making noise does not constitute interference.

        So those may be their stated reasons, but they will not hold up in court.

mycodendral 5 days ago

Federal felony, not free speech.

18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer

  • derbOac 5 days ago

    There's been lots of legal writing pointing out these statutes basically refer to impeding an officer by threat or physical force, which that statute you cite states. It doesn't refer to anything about providing food to someone who is fearing for their lives and won't leave the home, or communicating about the publicly observed whereabouts of law enforcement.

    • mycodendral 5 days ago

      "molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties"

      The explicit coordination of things like: vehicle blocking, personnel blocking, personnel removal, disruptive distraction could clearly qualify.

      How the courts choose to interpret & prosecute is up to them.

  • kennywinker 5 days ago

    Are these federal officers? They’re men in masks with camo and body armor kidnapping people off the streets and refusing to show identification beyond a patch that says “ICE”.

    That is who is alleged to be impeded.

    • mycodendral 5 days ago

      Yes, they are federal officers. There is no pattern of mass kidnappings by impersonators occurring here.

      Interpreting masked officers in tactical gear as kidnappers, or claiming that a patch saying “ICE” is insufficient identification, is not a legally valid basis for suspicion or resistance.

      • kennywinker 4 days ago

        The fuck it is.

        Sure, most of the people kidnapping people off the streets and incarcerating or deporting them without due process in violation of the constitution are federal officers. But unless they identify themselves clearly, you’d be stupid to not resist.

  • OhMeadhbh 5 days ago

    Sure, but you should read what "impede" and "interfere" mean both in the regs and court precedent. Following ICE agents around is neither impeding or interfering by current federal court definitions. But yeah... that can change quickly.

  • janalsncm 5 days ago

    “Free speech” is a concept not a law. The first amendment protects certain types of speech. Whether something is free speech or not does not depend on the US government’s opinion or the Chinese government or your mother in law.

    Publishing locations alone is not conspiracy to commit a crime. If ICE is impeded as a result of this information, that’s not enough. Conspiracy requires the government to prove that multiple people intended to impede them.

    • spiderice 5 days ago

      Which is probably the easiest thing ever to prove, since people are openly trying to impede them

      • [removed] 5 days ago
        [deleted]
poplarsol 5 days ago

Coordinating roadblocks, "dearrests", warning the subjects of law enforcement operations, and intentionally causing the maximum amount of noise in neighborhoods neighborhood are not things you will be able to get a federal judge to characterize as "constitutionally protected speech".