Posts
Police said the man did not appear to have planned a specific attack and that his activities were “only occurring in the online environment”. The police explained: "A couple of days ago what we observed was an escalation in the tone which went to a support of a mass casualty event, and potentially his involvement in that event.... There was a post in the very early hours of this morning which actually expressed support for a previous mass-casualty shooting that had occurred internationally.”
I imagine that, the potential suspect actually said something! There are several things of note:
- Cops are sitting around spying in real time on social media, keeping tabs and taking notes. If this is not chilling what is?
- The crime which this boy did not involve any conduct not even a conspiracy. Under the law of conspiracy mere talk becomes criminal if (but only if) an “overt act” is taken as a step to convert the talk into action. What was the overt act here? Clicking on a link while surfing the internet? Typing a comment into a Youtube post?
- Instead of reporting specifics, police hide behind a noise screen of vague burble.
- “expressed support for a mass casualty event” -- like what?
- the Albigensian Crusade was a good thing?
- the Americans were right to bomb Hiroshima?
- I'm glad a car was driven into a crowd of German holiday goers?
- “accessing and engaging with extreme right wing material” -- like what?
- going on line to read Mein Kampf?
- accessing works by Celine?
- Ezra Pound?
- Spengler?
- and what does it mean to "engage" with material?
- he downloaded?
- he clicked on a link?
- he put himself on a mailing list?
- “an escalation in the tone which went to a support of a mass casualty event, and potentially his involvement in that event.” What exactly is an “escalation in tone” ?
- “I sure would love...” ?
- "As God is my witness...” ?
- ... and what exactly does it mean to "support" ? Is this the same as
- approve? or did it involve
- actually aiding and abetting something?
- and once again potential....the favourite word of all cops and tyrants. Substitute "fantasizing" or "wishing" and you've nailed the meaninglessness of "potential"
"The decision to arrest today" saith the cops, "as made as a result of an escalation that we saw in this male’s online behaviour...” Uh huh.... So... ranting on the internet can get you arrested in Oz?
It bears reiteration that there was no evidence or information that the man was preparing a specific attack. On the contrary, along with billions of others he was thinking aloud -- bloviating -- on line. However, "we remain wary about the speed with which lone actors can progress from online activities to ones that impact the real world”. The Gestapo ... the NKVD could not have put it more precisely. We can ad Australia to the list of anti-fascist fascist dictatorships.
The vice -- and it is vicious -- in all of this is the underlying premise that it is the duty of the police to pre-vent crime. But this necessarily entails arresting people for crimes they have not committed by making it a crime to potentially commit a crime.
Anyone who cannot see how this destroys civil liberty needs to have his IQ levels checked. But to make it as clear as possible for the dumbest of fucks, since no actual crime has been committed, we are left with criminalizing the vaguest expressions of intent at best -- at best -- coupled with some equally vague or inocuous “act” in furtherance of the vaguery.
Needless to say, triggered by the words "right-wing" and "anti-semitic" the Woke Guardian reports all of this breathlessly with nary a scintilla of thought as to what is really going on and really stands in need of guarding.
Bleh....
No comments:
Post a Comment