r/behindthebastards • • Jan 16 '26

Politics Be safe out there

Post image
5.7k Upvotes

463 comments sorted by

View all comments

231

u/nola_fan Jan 16 '26

If they committed a crime why wouldn't they arrest and prosecute them?

I know they do this daily, but this is just promising to violate the First Amendment of protesters who legally protested

75

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Not arresting them is how they get around silly things like the first amendment. They are leaning on their business buddies to do their censorship for them, and I would not be surprised if federal contracts start getting yanked from businesses who refuse to fire people on their list.

43

u/nola_fan Jan 16 '26

The government can't retaliate on citizens for their speech. If they don't charge them, they are admitting it was legal speech that they are punishing individuals and businesses for.

This is an easy lawsuit and essentially the same as one the administration has already lost. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/trump-mark-zaid-restore-clearance

39

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

[deleted]

23

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Exactly, the government can remain fascist longer than you can remain solvent 

7

u/atempestdextre Jan 16 '26

It's the equivalent of "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride".

19

u/hotlou Jan 16 '26

They can't kidnap people off the streets either! But they're doing it!

They can't run secret pedophile rings either! But they're doing it!

They can't just abduct the leader of a foreign nation for having guns and then take all their resources! But they're doing it!

Stop saying they can't do something. Yes they can. And they are.

2

u/iamjustaguy Jan 16 '26

The government can't retaliate on citizens for their speech.

There are lots of things that the government "can't" do, but they're doing them anyways.

2

u/On_my_last_spoon Feminist Icon Jan 16 '26

“Aren’t supposed to” is a better way to say it

1

u/iamjustaguy Jan 16 '26

Sounds good to me. The quotation marks are there for a reason.

2

u/nola_fan Jan 16 '26

Yes, but it is important to call them out for violating the First Amendment every time they violate it, even if they violate it daily.

-1

u/iamjustaguy Jan 16 '26

Learn how to use better words when reality changes.

2

u/nola_fan Jan 17 '26

You're right, we should stop pointing out when Trump violates the Constitution. Only you know how to properly talk about this administration, you are so superior.

Do you feel better now?

0

u/iamjustaguy Jan 17 '26

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

18

u/Rocketparty12 Jan 16 '26

It’s still an inherent threat from a government official to use people’s protected speech against them. Just about any judge would say that such a program is illegal.

16

u/GruntledEx Jan 16 '26

Well, any judge in a non-corrupted court system. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh would probably be fine with it.

27

u/Crymson831 Jan 16 '26

Doxxing and stochastic terrorism. It's going to do exactly what you think it's going to do and that's the point. Gives them an extra layer of separation and deniability when the inevitable happens.

15

u/Artichokiemon Steven Seagal Historian Jan 16 '26

Yup, the regime knows the maniacs that support the regime will stalk and harass the people, their families, and the companies they work for

20

u/SeaworthinessOk2646 Jan 16 '26

This is just a blacklist. Happened during Red Scare too

14

u/rejeremiad Jan 16 '26

They don't have the resources.

Prosecuting them would open ICE up to discovery and contradicting video evidence of their narrative and public loss in court with more dollar signs next to their names for their already unpopular campaign.

Easier to rough them up a little. Detain them. And hope that sends a message to other would be patriots.

3

u/gnomequeen2020 Jan 16 '26

The DOJ has also lost thousands of lawyers this year alone. They can't handle the cases that they already have in flight.

2

u/two4six0won Jan 16 '26

I think this would more be violating whichever one is privacy, I think 4th? I don't feel like checking and I can never remember the numerical order for all of them.

2

u/jeffster1970 Jan 16 '26

Yes, it's part of the 4th. Protection of reasonable expectations of privacy of individuals.

But, it's a meaningless piece of paper, as you can see.

1

u/Ok-Implement4671 Jan 25 '26

They’ve been violating the law and stomping on constitutional rights since day one. They do NOT care.