Read on Twitter
🧵Fedposting is your Civic Duty🧵
(Not legal advise)
1/
Probably no secret police force in world history has achieved a greater psychological victory than the US letter Agencies in the 21st century.
The tabooing of "FedPosting" is now almost total on the internet.
(Not legal advise)
1/
Probably no secret police force in world history has achieved a greater psychological victory than the US letter Agencies in the 21st century.
The tabooing of "FedPosting" is now almost total on the internet.
2/
On dissident forums across the web no sooner has someone advocated revolution or invoked the image of a guillotine before the accusation of "Fed" starts flying
Statements are said to "Glow" and participants called "Glowies" if they advocate anything but ineffective activism
On dissident forums across the web no sooner has someone advocated revolution or invoked the image of a guillotine before the accusation of "Fed" starts flying
Statements are said to "Glow" and participants called "Glowies" if they advocate anything but ineffective activism
3/
In this the letter agencies and particularly the FBI have achieved a psychological victory over dissenters to the regime greater than almost any security force in the history of the modern world...
And they have won this without any legal grounding whatsoever.
In this the letter agencies and particularly the FBI have achieved a psychological victory over dissenters to the regime greater than almost any security force in the history of the modern world...
And they have won this without any legal grounding whatsoever.
4/
What is one allowed to say? How extreme an ideological vision can one advocate? When does extremism become the illegal advocacy of violence?
In the US the answer might surprise you:
There is no limit.
What is one allowed to say? How extreme an ideological vision can one advocate? When does extremism become the illegal advocacy of violence?
In the US the answer might surprise you:
There is no limit.
5/
The 1969 SCOTUS case Brandenburg v. Ohio, held a Ku Klux Klan member who openly advocated violence against black and Jewish Americans was 100% within his first amendment rights
Advocating insurrection, racial expulsions, or violent acts, including murder, is perfectly legal
The 1969 SCOTUS case Brandenburg v. Ohio, held a Ku Klux Klan member who openly advocated violence against black and Jewish Americans was 100% within his first amendment rights
Advocating insurrection, racial expulsions, or violent acts, including murder, is perfectly legal
6/
The case set a landmark precedent and an incredibly high bar before the government could restrict speech.
The Imminent Lawless Action standard.
The case set a landmark precedent and an incredibly high bar before the government could restrict speech.
The Imminent Lawless Action standard.
7/
For political speech to be restricted it is not enough for it to advocate illegal or violent acts, but must be directly inciting or coordinating such actions.
Even then prior restraint requires an even higher standard, before criminal liability can be applied.
For political speech to be restricted it is not enough for it to advocate illegal or violent acts, but must be directly inciting or coordinating such actions.
Even then prior restraint requires an even higher standard, before criminal liability can be applied.
8/
Basically unless you are engaged in a criminal conspiracy involving the actual coordination and plotting of specific individual illegal activities, or directly telling a mob or armed person to commit specific acts of violence...
Its protected speech.
Basically unless you are engaged in a criminal conspiracy involving the actual coordination and plotting of specific individual illegal activities, or directly telling a mob or armed person to commit specific acts of violence...
Its protected speech.
9/
Now despite Brandenburg himself being a member of the KKK, historically the largest advocates and favours of this standard have been the ACLU and the American far left.
Now despite Brandenburg himself being a member of the KKK, historically the largest advocates and favours of this standard have been the ACLU and the American far left.
10/
For generations going back to Schenck v. United States (1919) left wing socialist and anti-war activists had been harassed and arrested for advocating illegal activity such as draft dodging, strikes, or a violent workers revolution to overthrow of the government.
For generations going back to Schenck v. United States (1919) left wing socialist and anti-war activists had been harassed and arrested for advocating illegal activity such as draft dodging, strikes, or a violent workers revolution to overthrow of the government.
11/
What Brandenburg did was it said NO to all those restrictions on political speech.
The First Amendment and free speech includes advocating violent revolution and illegal activity, just as much as when the founding fathers advocated their illegal violent revolution.
What Brandenburg did was it said NO to all those restrictions on political speech.
The First Amendment and free speech includes advocating violent revolution and illegal activity, just as much as when the founding fathers advocated their illegal violent revolution.
12/
"The draft should be dodged"
"[insert group] should be expelled"
"The government should be overthrown"
"politicians should be guillotined"
In America none of these normative claims are illegal, nor can any such claims be illegal.
Only active coordinating of crime is.
"The draft should be dodged"
"[insert group] should be expelled"
"The government should be overthrown"
"politicians should be guillotined"
In America none of these normative claims are illegal, nor can any such claims be illegal.
Only active coordinating of crime is.
13/
So what have the US letter agencies done?
They've participated in a campaign of intimidation and threats, just like every decade of their existence, but now against social media companies to get them to remove the speech those letter agencies can neither censor nor punish
So what have the US letter agencies done?
They've participated in a campaign of intimidation and threats, just like every decade of their existence, but now against social media companies to get them to remove the speech those letter agencies can neither censor nor punish
14/
Federal employees and bot farms have openly encouraged the rampant accusation of "FED" whenever talk of revolution or political extremism comes up, so that groups will self censor the ideas these letter agencies have no right to restrict.
Federal employees and bot farms have openly encouraged the rampant accusation of "FED" whenever talk of revolution or political extremism comes up, so that groups will self censor the ideas these letter agencies have no right to restrict.
15/
They've even pressured European governments to censor social media in the hopes the resultant company policies will make their way back to the US services of those companies.
Actively coordinating with hostile foreign powers to subvert the constitution.
They've even pressured European governments to censor social media in the hopes the resultant company policies will make their way back to the US services of those companies.
Actively coordinating with hostile foreign powers to subvert the constitution.
15/
For 100+ years communist and extremist groups have openly discussed violent government overthrow, murderous class war, terrorism, and revolution as not an IF but a WHEN, and openly planned for it... just keeping mum about specific illegal activity
And that was their right
For 100+ years communist and extremist groups have openly discussed violent government overthrow, murderous class war, terrorism, and revolution as not an IF but a WHEN, and openly planned for it... just keeping mum about specific illegal activity
And that was their right
16/
A free people such as Americans who reserve the right to dissolve their government "When in the course of human events" and retain the democratic power to direct political violence, both state and private
Well they reserve the right to discuss whether they should and why
A free people such as Americans who reserve the right to dissolve their government "When in the course of human events" and retain the democratic power to direct political violence, both state and private
Well they reserve the right to discuss whether they should and why
17/
Already throughout Europe and the Commonwealth, this core function of free speech, the right to participate in and advocate truly radical politics, has been criminalized and subject to the most aggressive prosecution
Americans should not surrender their minds to empty threat
Already throughout Europe and the Commonwealth, this core function of free speech, the right to participate in and advocate truly radical politics, has been criminalized and subject to the most aggressive prosecution
Americans should not surrender their minds to empty threat
PS.
I also write long form content.
Check out my piece on the horrific state of legacy media... and how it basically sustains itself through blackmail and influence peddling
anarchonomicon.substack.com/p/why-is-legac…
I also write long form content.
Check out my piece on the horrific state of legacy media... and how it basically sustains itself through blackmail and influence peddling
anarchonomicon.substack.com/p/why-is-legac…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
