Interesting statement from DHS given their previous statements regarding Jan 6th and anything they can remotely connect to “white supremacy”
is not leftist violent rhetoric also extremist incitement? why is leftist extremist rhetoric excused beforehand?
i have no idea what you’re saying with that
Gaslighting. The DHS is gaslighting.
Yeah, yeah…didn’t you know; rhetoric supporting violent extremism does not itself constitute extremism?
Sometimes…it’s different.
What’s your stance on the subject?
Should rhetoric supporting violent extremism itself be considered extremism?
Good question. What’s yours?
Or better yet, would there be “violent extremism” without extremist rhetoric?
When the majority leader of the Senate, supports violent extremism against the SCOTUS Justices, does so on national television and not a bleep of reprimand from our government, media, social media or any other institution sets the precedence that this is A-OK and an approved way of life.
Of course politicians are going to politic. That’s like saying water is wet.
That’s why I asked the poster what HIS opinion was on the matter.
Just like I’ll ask you now…what is YOUR opinion on the matter?
He crossed the line my friend and there is no excuse…not from him or those that excuse this…like you just did.
To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)
Applying the Brandenburg Test
Cases applying the Brandenburg test stress just how high the bar is set before the government can criminalize someone for advocating dissent or violence.
First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)
Now consider the current gatherings outside of our SCOTUS Justices homes…were they incited and empowered by Schumer’s words? I’d conclude most definitely.
IMO Congress should enact laws prohibiting any and all protests with in a legalized perimeter of a current Judge’s home.
I did nothing of the sort.
I asked for YOUR opinion on the matter.
What is YOUR opinion?
Should extreme rhetoric be considered extremism?
Shouldn’t be difficult for you to give your position in the subject.
K… 
That wasn’t “politic”, it was inciting violence against SCOTUS Justices…period.
Inherent (D)omestic terrorism from a violent pack of animals who know nothing else.
I disagree with the very concept of “unprotected speech” in this context.
Should extremism be illegal?
See? Decision not even made yet. It’s all these animals know.
It’s literally ALL they know.
“I don’t like this… BURN ALL THE THINGS!!”
A “judge” represents 1/3 of our checks and balance systems. They can NOT be threatened in any way or it totally disrupts the intent of our forefathers. They must be protected by law and Schiff’s rhetoric was inexcusable IMO.
