Giving Speeches is a Felony, Because Putin
read the indictment here
Can you be prosecuted for criticizing the government if a foreign agent encouraged you to do it, or supported your effort to speak or write in dissent — or if your argument was potentially helpful to a foreign power? Is saying “end the war!” a felony if Putin likes it? In a case that echoes the legal controversies of the Woodrow Wilson years, we’re about to find out.
Start with Glenn Greenwald:
Click on the link for the whole thread, including video of one of the discord-sowing propagandists. As Greenwald says, the content of the material that led to the indictment is “exactly what you'd expect from American Black leftist/socialists, including attacks on Biden for the war, anti-DNC stuff and #BLM cases.” It’s mostly not a set of views I come close to agreeing with, but it’s normal political discourse, with themes that you could have heard at an ANSWER rally during the First Gulf War.
The news media is covering it straight, delivering a story about the government catching some criminals who worked with foreign networks:
But one of the things I’ll always say in this kind of public controversy is that you should skip the coverage, or most of it, and go see the thing itself. So here’s the indictment, which you can also see here:
The district court docket shows that this is a superseding indictment, recently made public:
In in the indictment, look at, for example, “Manner and Means,” starting on pg. 10:
They wrote articles. If I’m an American socialist and on Monday I write an article that says the oppressive American capitalist system sucks, it’s not a crime. If I’m an American socialist and on Tuesday I write another article that says the oppressive American capitalist system sucks, because somebody who works for Putin says he thinks it’s a good idea to write it, that’s apparently a felony. The DOJ is recoding acts of political speech by citizens on the basis of foreign intent. That’s…interesting.
Stop the war!
FBI SEARCH WARRANT GET ON THE GROUND
Or look at “Overt Acts,” starting on pg. 13. For example:
They posted a petition on a website. This is a felony indictment.
You’ll find allegations of deep foreign involvement throughout the indictment, including communication with foreign agents and some Russian payments — of, for example, $500. But the actions, the results that make it all a criminal conspiracy, were that some leftists gave speeches and wrote articles and posted petitions. I went to a small liberal arts college where circulating America Sucks petitions was normal lunchtime activity, so maybe the FBI should see if any foreign alumni have written any checks to the place.
The effort to pathologize unremarkable dissent — because PUTIN!, of course — is blossoming into a garden of poisoned vines, and the criminalization of what looks like dopey but fairly ordinary political speech is not a good sign. It’s an effort that, succeeding, will spread beyond its current target.
I have emailed requests for comment out to many prominent First Amendment lawyers, and will post their thoughts as I get them.
Similar is happening in the UK, with govt crackdown on online activities and anti-protest legislation currently going through the process of entering the statute books. Soon it will be illegal to peacefully protest against anything. Govts don't like dissent in any form. Worrying times.
The founders thought they devised the best system of government possible to be run by humans. Three separate but co equal branches of government, checks and balances, etc. They figured at least one branch would be sane if the others ran off the rails for a little bit. The one branch they thought couldn’t be co-opted was the judiciary. Sadly that hasn’t come true. None of the insanity would be happening if we had an honest judicial system and judges who followed the rule of law.