Skip to main content

Protected speech? Not according to the FBI ...

Take a few moments and read this Facebook comment by one Blaine Cooper:
Cooper posted this on either August 21 or 22, 2013, and on August 23 the local police department contacted him and told him to come downtown:  the FBI wanted speak with him.

Here's how Cooper characterized the interview: 
He complied with the request for an interview, which lasted 45 minutes with federal agents present.  He was released after apparently being determined to not be a threat.
“They had every Facebook post I had ever made in a huge file, along with all my wife’s information, and parent’s information,” Cooper told policestateusa.com. 
Cooper said that he was told that without “defusing the situation” by complying with the interview, his house might have been raided.
“The FBI made mention they came to question me so they didn’t have to kick in my door,” Cooper toldpolicestateusa.com.
The question here is not whether anyone agrees with Cooper's viewpoint or endorses his rant (I'm not endorsing them), but whether his comment on Facebook constitutes protected political speech under the First Amendment. In the post, from what I can see, Mr. Cooper makes no threat against any individual, and his comments about "fighting back" against the "Nazi police state" remain hypothetical and hyperbolic throughout.

Under what provision of law does a Federal agency get to haul a person in and question them based on a survivalist rant that's actually quite similar to what you can find on sale as fiction at any Barnes & Nobles?

I suppose someone could argue that the FBI had other pieces of information about Mr. Cooper, and that this was just one small piece of the puzzle, but it seems highly unlikely--they let him go.

I'm sure I will be visited here by people who don't get the point of this post, which is not to endorse armed resistance, but to raise the point that what's happening to Blaine Cooper is virtually the same thing that is happening to aggressively non-violent environmentalists who are being surveilled and characterized by the FBI as potential terrorists.

Do any of you wonder if, in protesting the Delaware City refinery, or fighting against recent gun control measures in the General Assembly, you have somehow been added to a list of suspects and potential terrorists by a government that increasingly works on us rather than for us?

Comments

tom said…
"Do any of you wonder if, in protesting the Delaware City refinery, or fighting against recent gun control measures in the General Assembly, you have somehow been added to a list of suspects and potential terrorists by a government that increasingly works on us rather than for us?"

You Ain't Done Nothing If You Ain't Been Called A Red...

and nothing ever changes except the labels.
September 11, 2013 at 1:44 AM
NCSDad said…
Probably using your blog comments to point out the troublemakers.
September 11, 2013 at 6:13 AM
Unknown said…
I wouldn't be surprised to be on any number of lists. I don't travel by plane anymore so I can't say that I have been put on a no-fly list, but no one else in my family has had any problems. Still, I expect that my activism for these many concepts would, more likely, get me shot by someone who doesn't like my positions or politics. At events, I try to make it a point to talk to any police present. I thank them for their service and tell them that I am the person who will work with them if things look to go violent. For the most part, when you talk to people, it's harder to objectify them to a single concept or characterization. Most police get their backs up if they don't know what to expect. They're people too and want to keep things calm.

I've been called a rabble-rouser and I like that people care and feel emotion for what's important. as citizens we must participate in our communities. Regular demonstrations and rallies tend to diffuse the fear of them, show that the public is reasonable and responsible and are willing to work together.

Corporate manipulation to build fear gets in the way. The refinery rally is an example of that. The lies and security intimidation creates an environment of us/them and brings emotions to base levels. A corporation exists and operates at the pleasure of the population of the state it operates in. Management often gets confused that things are the other way around. When people dispense with their fears, they will get their freedoms and liberty back.
September 12, 2013 at 1:08 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more