Censorship. Technically, the First Amendment refers to government censorship. We individuals

[T Wolf]

are free to restrict anyone's speech for any damn reason we want.

It may not be legal (kidnapping and gagging OxyBoy for instance), but that would not violate the Constitution.

Individuals can choose to take an action that accomplishes their objective. That action can be legal or not. Extreme or not. And the acting individual must be ready to accept the consequences for their actions (jail, etc.).

Some could say that I am defending the H-Museum shooter. I am not. In the end, it comes down to whether the authorities will choose to prosecute the offenders for their actions (crime?) and whether a jury of their peers will condemn the action by convicting them.

A parallel occurrence is the recent rape of a young girl here in Philly. A "person of interest" was IDed by the cops and brutally attacked by a neighborhood crowd. The DA has announced that there will not be an investigation of the crowd's actions and obviously, no indictments.

The neighbors obviously committed a crime (assault). But it was decided not to investigate or prosecute. So, in this case, there was no "official" violation of the man's rights.

But, what if he had been innocent? I wonder if the DA would have investigated and indicted. Should she have if the "suspect" (since charged with the crime) was not involved? Should she even now, knowing that the cops probably have the actual perpetrator?

Back to the topic - can we shut up the reich-wing mouthpieces on Fuck Nuze? Yes we can. But, there will (probably) be consequences.

Can we restrict their speech because we think it leads to violence? Yes, we can. But be prepared for the personal consequences that will result.

What we cannot do, and, IMO, should not do, is bring the government into the act. First, there is that pesky Amendment. Second, they (Congress, administration, etc.) are loathe to do anything, especially something that might benefit the people over the powerful who actually run the country. Finally, it is more effective to execute some kind of direct action (see Tiller clinic for example).

As with EVERYTHING, it usually comes down to whose ox is getting gored.

[MADem]

1. Kidnapping is deprivation of liberty, and the Constitution does address that nt

[T Wolf]

4. The government cannot deprive someone of their liberty (yeah, right). But we individuals can.

Sure, it is a crime, but that is all.

That is why I am for extra-political actions rather than working through a system that is stacked against the individual citizen. First, for efficiency sake. Second, because the government is not (technically) allowed to do that.

[paulsby]

2. the best response to bad speech is good speech

not attempting to shut the people up you disagree with.

that is the american way. oppose their speech with your speech.

you are correct that it is not a constitutional violation (generally speaking) for private citizens to try to shut people up.

[T Wolf]

3. That's all I'm saying. It may be a crime (so were MLK's marches), but it does not go

beyond that to a constitutional issue.