omw_68
19hr ago
I don't think it was or would be "terrorism lite",
Well that's just a matter of semantics. My point is that this type of harassment is one facet of a larger issue: Blocking streets; disrupting university lectures; etc. Doing things which are intentionally designed to harm, inconvenience, and traumatize other people; doing so for political reasons; but stopping short of full on violent activities like shooting, bombing etc.
In my view, this is enough of a phenomenon that it deserves a name. If you can think of something better than "terrorism lite," please feel free to suggest it.
omw_68
19hr ago
If the state government of Minnesota refuses to do that because they are on the side of the "protestors" ... well then you are in a state of exception ...One option then, is to hack federal law in order to go after the protestors, which is what the left usually does.
Another possibility is to have a procedure by which the NGOs who help organize and support these activities could be "designated" in a way similar to the way terrorist organizations are designated. Once that happens, the NGO loses its tax exemption, it becomes a serious offense to donate money to them, and so on. Admittedly, this is probably an unrealistic fantasy, but still, I think it should be considered. Because (arguably) it would go a long way to preventing these kinds of activities if there were a way to discourage not only the rioters themselves but the people and organizations who support them.
omw_68
19hr ago
I'd much prefer we returned to a time where people got their asses kicked for acting like an asshole and the cops wouldn't do anything if it was plain that a person had it coming.
I think this is a great fantasy, I'm just not sure how realistic it is. Part of the problem is that recent history has shown that police intervention decisions are often highly political.
omw_68
19hr ago
These people deserve prison, imo.
FWIW I agree. Partly because what they did was terrible, but also because the public needs to see that it's not necessary to take the law into one's own hands. I was once in a university talk that was targeted for disruption and the urge to smack the disruptors is pretty strong. Arguably, knowing that they will face serious negative consequences for their actions would make it much easier to refrain.
omw_68
19hr ago
Thanks for pointing this out. Arguably this would apply to university lecture disruptors; traffic blockers; etc. I do think there needs to be some kind of private right of action and a way to sanction organizations who support this sort of stuff.
omw_68
19hr ago
What I’m not seeing mentioned here is Lemon’s defense; he says he was watching the protest as a journalist, which to be fair was his career and he claims to be doing independent journalism after his retirement from CNN. We do have video of him doing things like interviewing protestors and the pastor (who asked him to leave), and commenting on the contrast between people yelling and protesting and people trying to pray as demonstrative of a divided America. I don’t know that it’s great journalism, but it’s a more complex situation than “Don Lemon was rioting in a church.”
Having had a chance to think about this, it looks to me like he was a part of the conspiracy or is otherwise criminally responsible. Arguably, part of the plan was to disrupt the church service simply by having a large number of people in the room. So I think that anyone joining the group; knowing about the plan; entering the church with the group; and refusing to leave when asked, should be prosecuted. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the law in question, this is just what seems reasonable to me. (I'm also assuming that Don Lemon was asked to leave and refused.)
Besides, I don't think being a "journalist" should give a person any more rights than they otherwise would have. I think anyone who was a part of the group; who entered the church; and who refused to leave when asked should be charged.
omw_68
19hr ago
The FACE Act was nominally supposed to be that universal law despite the name
Well the FACE Act is rather narrow, right? It doesn't cover general traffic-blocking or university lecture disrupting, does it?
omw_68
19hr ago
IMO the best response to this sort of thing is a re-invigoration of the right of self defense. If someone breaks into your church, they are forfeit. This is not a government courthouse or a Wal Mart. Its a church. Its a lot of people's second home. Just give that pastor and all his flock full immunity to any retribution, including shooting in the back people who flee during the, arguably, proper response of force.
Having been the victim of one of these planned disruptions, this idea seems appealing to me, but I'm not sure it's workable in practice. Keep in mind that the same types of people who invaded this church are constantly looking for ways to abuse the law (often with the help of Soros prosecutors).
omw_68
19hr ago
His arrest seems fine to me in isolation, but I'm pessimistic about any prospect for an even-handed underlying principle there.
Yeah, having had the chance to consider all of this,it occurred to me that my proposal is kind of a fantasy in that there is a sizable faction in the United States which is aggressively making use of Terrorism Lite. They don't want to give up one of their favorite weapons and it's likely that they have enough political power that they could stop any attempt to enact the kind of policy I am proposing.
I, for one, would be happy if this guy, abortion clinic protesters, university lecture disruptors, Samsung executives who greenlight patching your smart fridge to display ads and Motte ban evaders all had to share a prison cell going forward.
To an extent I agree, but I do believe there needs to be some room for free speech. If Don Lemon and his people had protested on the sidewalk across the street from the church without obstructing, blocking, getting in peoples' faces, etc., I would probably agree that there should no criminal consequences.
You could just as easily ask why traditional laws against murder, kidnapping, mayhem, etc. enough when it comes to full on terrorism.
Among other things, laws specifically directed at terrorism make it easier for the authorities to go after the people and organizations that support terrorism, to sanction them and cut them off financially.
Suppose George Soros gives $100,000 to some 501(c)(3) which nominally provides food and shelter for immigrants but also is involved in organizing these sorts of disruptive protests. As far as I know, there is no law at the moment forbidding him from doing so. Which, as a practical matter, means that he has a lot of freedom to hire rent-a-mobs to block highways, disrupt conservative speaking events, and so on.
Under my proposal (which admittedly is kind of a fantasy) it would be illegal to provide money or any kind of support to organizations which engage in this sort of behavior. Which means that a lot of their funding gets cut off; they are unable to buy a lot of the services they need to function, and so on.
More options
Context Copy link