Rand Paul: criminalize speech.

[J. J.]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater.

It doesn't criminalize speech.

[J. J.]

The "they" might be those people giving the speeches, not attending.  I really think that you should look at contacts in these cases.

[J. J.]

The "they" might be those people giving the speeches, not attending.  I really think that you should look at contacts in these cases.

I will quote the pertinent part of Paul's statement:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no room for equivocation on this issue. Paul not only supports outlawing 'sedition', in keeping with the great American tradition of Woodrow Wilson, but in outlawing attending speeches that promote 'sedition'. The former is bad enough; the latter is odious to any man who loves his freedom and wants to keep it. If Paul has his way (and there is no reason to expect he won't some time in the future), I will resist it with every measure of my ability to do so, and I'd advise others who are conscious of their rights as sovereign individuals to do the same.

Or...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would take someone, not in the abstract, planning to violently overthrow the government, as being unprotected free speech.

[J. J.]

I would take someone, not in the abstract, planning to violently overthrow the government, as being unprotected free speech.

Leaving aside the fact that you take it wrongly, why even mention anyone "attending speeches" if his intent is 'only' to arrest those giving the speeches? "(S)omeone attending speeches" ought never have been brought up if Paul's intent is only to clamp down on those actually doing the speechifying, which is pretty self-evidently not the case from the quotation in question.

He might be saying, we should be taking action against people that actively propose overthrowing the government, and we should look carefully at the associates of those people.  And yet, I think it is fine to look at "known contacts" of people (this from a guy who had dinner with a DA last week).