(02-13-2022, 05:21 PM)epronovost Wrote:(02-13-2022, 04:59 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Definitely this was going on, my main point is that it should not have been going on then and should not be going on now.
I would say it depends on the method. There is no way one can compare a police visiting a person to give her a pamphlet about protesting in a legal way to intimidation by the police suffered by civil rights activists in the 60's. To me that's akin to comparing mask and vaccine mandates to the holocaust.
I don't think the methods have to be similar to support a blanket principle that the government should not be harassing protesters (law abiding peaceful protesters), and that such a thing is bad no matter the method.
(02-13-2022, 05:21 PM)epronovost Wrote: I do think the police has the right, if not the responsibility to monitor social medias. They are public places after all and public places are under police surveillance. If someone plans, incite or encourages criminal activities on social media, it seems perfectly reasonable that they receive a visit from the police or at least a modicum of police attention. My litmus test is basically, replace "social media" by "the local mall". Moral of the story is that people need to remember that the internet might be in your home, but when you are on it, you are in public. Don't expect any sort of privacy on the internet unless you are in secured encrypted section of a website like your personal bank account.
If the police officer had said anything like "don't go those protests" or "don't say/do that", I think there would have been a problem. That would have been repressive and very worrying. That she distributes information pamphlets on the does and don't of protesting is perfectly fine.
I'm okay with the monitoring and agree with your "local mall" analogy. Such monitoring will allow them to be better prepared at the actual protests. But pre-crime "warnings" sits very poorly with me (at least in this Freedom of Speech context, not, say, a planned mass shooting or terror attack). Maybe the part of them actually coming to one's doorstep is what is most off-putting. It seems inevitable that there is a political aspect to this "policing." Some people will get the visit and be discouraged from protesting. Some will not- perhaps they had different political opinions.