(08-12-2021, 09:48 AM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I think part of the problem is that it's been a bit like the old saw about the frog on a hot plate.
We saw the beginnings of this kind of behavior with the Pizza Gate fiasco. Where, spurred by misinformation and outright lies, some armed idiot stormed a pizza restaurant in DC in search of a secret sex dungeon for pedophiles.
"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"
And now you have the same bullshit happening at the US Capitol, only on a much grander scale.
"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"
At which point people gotta start asking themselves, "When is it enough?" At which point do you cross the line? DEMOCRACY WAS FUCKING DISRUPTED. PEOPLE DIED.
Where is the goddamned line!? Are we gonna be like the frog that sits in the continually and steadily warming water until we get boiled alive?
You can't let shit like this continue to slide because it sets a very bad precedence. Do you really want an actual, organized militia to storm a state capitol or Washington, DC, only because no one did anything because they covered themselves with the Bill of Rights? Abusing our basic rights like, "Freedom of Speech", "Right to Gather", and "Right to Bear Arms"? Even though what they are gonna do is blatantly obvious?
And if it does happen, they'll just reuse the same stock excuse.
"Oh, but we never actually said anyone should do anything like that!"
That's the road we're on right now. Where "Insurrection" is just "Rioting", and where "Sedition" is just "Violations of a Social Media Network's TOS". And further compounded by Republicans doing their best to stonewall due process for the "Rioters" at the capitol, and Social Media's reluctance to penalize accounts spreading misinformation.
So where do you draw the line at?
Ergo the rub of the situation: without a smoking gun proving X was meant to do Y for Z reason, any possible overreach would be a cure worse than the disease.
Jumping the gun and declaring judgment without a confession in open court of an intent to commit a crime (or a conviction based on evidence) means either this was blithering madness that resulted in tragedy or actual conspiracy, and as infuriating as it sounds, until the legal process does it's thing, we just won't know. What we are spitballing about here is basically an academic debate.
Besides, let's say, for the sake of argument, this was all a planned event to overthrow the U.S government with malice aforethought. If that's the case, that's even more reason I want it proven in a court of law so, assuming the said theory is true, those guilty are punished by the rule of law instead of by a mob, otherwise complaining about the disruption of said law will be a pathetic and ironic joke.
Even the British soldiers during the Boston Massacre were defended by guys who otherwise would've thrown them to the wolves because if the soldiers had to be punished, they wanted it to be for the right reasons no one could later dispute based on the evidence on the record as regards their guilt or innocence.
I want the same for whoever is guilty or innocent in this case, just so rule of law remains intact. Anything else leads to anarchy all of us can agree would be even worse.