[no-name-here]

> Public anger is a very pre-smartphone thing.

Public anger has gotten to the point that right-wing groups are pushing US legislation to outlaw it as “terrorism” [1], with the president of the right-wing American Heritage think tank pointing to examples such as “college students who took over campus quads” [2] and town halls with congress members getting shut down [3] - they say new laws are needed because public anger over “political purposes” is disturbing “civil tranquility” in the U.S. so those who are aiming to impact “civil tranquility” need to be “held accountable” under the law.

The legislation being pushed starts with:

> Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “Combatting Civil Terrorism Act.”

> Section 2. Purpose. To promote civil tranquility by holding those who seek to disrupt it for political purposes accountable.

And aside from that, social media (Reddit) seems awash in “public anger” etc.

[1] https://sapirjournal.org/fixing-america/2026/islam-in-americ...

[2] https://manhattan.institute/article/model-legislation-an-act...

[3] https://www.city-journal.org/article/adam-smith-israel-civil...

[lelanthran]

I gotta know, which of those specific points in your second citation do you have a problem with? The only one I can see having a problem with is "d. Subversion...".

I expect that most voters welcome efforts that aim to stop other groups using violence and intimidation to suppress their speech or legal religious activities.

The only problem with these proposed laws is the same problem with all existing laws - selective enforcement.

[no-name-here]

I was responding to the grandparent commenter’s claims that ‘public anger’ no longer exists - so whether you want to point to one of those examples, right-wing pushes to pass new laws labeling those impacting “civil tranquility” as domestic “civil terrorists”, or public anger seen across social media (Reddit, etc), my point is that the argument that public anger no longer exists seems unsupported.

[lelanthran]

I understand now, apologies.

I agree with you, that public anger still exists[1], but I will not consider that link I mentioned in my response as an example of the suppression of public anger.

A new law that specifically calls out people as criminals when they attempt to limit a person from entering their place of worship, etc is not a law suppressing the expression of public anger.

======================

[1] One can even make the argument that Trump got elected on the back of public anger. The values he espoused are unpalatable, but there is little question that the whole suppression of opinions in the last decade have had much to do with his popularity.

[watwut]

I dont think anything you wrote in that paragraph has anything to do with actual public anger as it exists. It is just Heritage think tank advancing their authoritarian dictatorship agenda yet again, this time more openly. As far as they are concerned, anyone left to them speaking is a grave danger to the republic, attack on their right to be supported all the time and must be punished. They dont ask for similar laws in relation to far right, despite the fact it is more violent.

There is a lot of public anger tho. Facebook and Twitter are working overtime to stroke it. Heritage loves it as long as it ends up being in MAGA colors.