[andy_ppp]

This is terrifying; am I reading it correctly that the government is, on behalf of the President, going after people who have opposed him and is starting a register maybe of those persons who hurt the feelings of the glorious leader? I wonder how far down the rabbit hole we are going :-(

[ptero]

While I am strongly opposed to this warrant as being ridiculously too broad, I think you are off the mark.

The government is not investigating those who hurt Trump's feelings (does he have any? sorry :) ). It is the law enforcement that is going after violent rioters whatever their political views are. I hope it does and keeps doing it every time there is a violent riot.

To me, the problem is in trying to grab a lot of private information in the hopes of easily finding leads. Instead they should focus on other sources: I suspect DC has all sorts of video monitors and was swarming with agents during the inauguration. Cannot this serve as the source of leads? Maybe cops can walk around some more and talk to people? I doubt a crowd can riot without leaving traces to the identities of a number of rioters. My 2c.

[andy_ppp]

Hmmmm. Seems like a really really big coincidence, but okay. I presume this information will be released by the court once it’s used in evidence or can it be sealed only for this dubious case.

[ignoramceisblis]

Are you serious?

There have been threats (or "wish-deaths") made against our president's life. By members of the media, congress, and plenty more. Even that most extreme act, in my view, has received only a tepid response. Many are vocal in their support of it. And shows still go on with the president's likeness being shot, riots still continue against the president and all of his supporters, and go to nearly any major media outlet and you'll find the usual slant of derision, with all of the behavior that follows. Commentators even stoop so low as to use the latest narrative propped up by major media players to patronize the president's own daughter and tell her to "sit shiva" for her father.

All of this continues today, and it will still continue. From everything that I've seen of the president's behavior and heard first-hand from his speeches, he will do very little about the words that the media uses to describe him and how they frame him. He will take those punches, and it's obvious he's been willing to take even more.

This article is only meant to stoke the flames of the "never-Trumpers" once more. To inject more fear into the population and convince them that they're the victims, that they're being attacked. A strategy that is played time and time again and one that is destroying our cohesion ("You attack one of "us", you attack all of "us"." Where "us" is usually decided by some superficial property.)

Look at the language of the lawyers, as highlighted by the Washington Post: “This action will cause Web users to worry that the government will be monitoring every site they visit.” “This is a case about a website that is engaged in political speech.”

Please. "Speech", or planning riots? This is a court case seeking some justice for riots that "left six police officers injured and caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage when downtown D.C. businesses were vandalized just blocks from where President Trump and his family paraded following the swearing-in ceremony." This is not an attack on innocent Americans who had nothing to do with those peaceful riots.

Don't fall for the trap.

[treerock]

No. I think you are reading that incorrectly.

[andy_ppp]

Okay, sure, care to edit your comment and explain how?

[bmm6o]

The stated motivation (which you are free to believe or not) is that the site was used to organize a violent protest, and that they are not interested in the users who were merely exercising their right to free speech or assembly.

[treerock]

A bit late but...

There is nothing in the article saying that they are doing this on behalf of the president.

Nor that they are 'starting a register'. In fact it says 'any information prosecutors find unrelated to the rioting would be sealed and could not be shared by prosecutors with anyone else or any other government authority.'

And nor does it say that they are doing this to 'persons who hurt the feelings of the glorious leader', rather it says it is going after rioters 'left six police officers injured and caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage'.

So nothing you said could be have come from this article.

[AnkleInsurance]

Not parent, but:

This is a federal search warrant pertaining to an ongoing investigation, not a facility that Trump organized to hunt nonbelievers, as much as you want that to be true so that your narrative can play itself out.

[charonn0]

How are those things mutually exclusive?

[snissn]

Just curious if you read the linked article or not before commenting?

[bwanab]

It can't happen here.

[ianai]

Not only can it happen here, but the founders of the country thought it would by the mid 1800s.

[VerDeTerre]

In effect, it did happen. A number of American citizens were prosecuted and convicted under the Federalist-supported Sedition Act of 1798, which included the following:

"And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years."

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=16&page...

[hacktothefuture]

Would love to read more about this. A cursory search didn't reveal anything obvious, can you point me in a direction to read more?

[ianai]

I've heard it from various sources. I'll scratch my head today to see what I can recall for specifics. On first bluff, I think David McCullough's books touch on this in places.