Foreign operative? Depends on the operation. This operation is speech. That’s all that’s all that’s alledged. If they’re trying to blow up a dam or something, sure.
They’re not being prosecuted for their opinions or merely expressing agreement with Russian government. They’re being prosecuted for not disclosing a business agreement.
Ten years in federal prison
Sure, it’s the normal high penalty to induce cooperation problem, but it’s not a free speech as mere opinion issue it’s being paid by a foreign government and not disclosing it issue. One that’s in the government’s interest to know about. It’s a hard pill to swallow to say that the US government should not care or should not know about foreign operations on its soil.
The “operation” is constitutionally protected speech. No, the government should not be involved.
Protectionism 2.0
No foreign entanglements: abroad or at home.
Have you read the indictment?
Most of it is about a Russian operative operating on US soil without disclosure. One of the US citizens being charged travelers to Russia, met with Russian government agents, and accepted money from them.
Some of it seems to involve a Russian operative helping fund and direct a political campaign. Do you consider foreign involvement in US elections to be speech?
Of course it is speech
Just to be clear, we are talking about a Russian citizen who is not disclosing that he works for the Russian government going to a political campaign’s headquarters to “supervise” and give advice.
Yes you are describing speech.
Am I describing constitutionally protected speech?
The speech is protected, the failure to disclose a business transaction is not. Again, if they said, on their own, that they 100% agree with Russian policy they wouldn’t and couldn’t be prosecuted.
It’s a bit like saying because MSNBC is a news and opinion organization so any fraud or failure to disclose business laws that they break is really prosecuting free speech so they should get a free pass on anything they do.
In reality authoritarian governments love pretextual reasons for shutting down opposition so government interests need to be balanced with the general freedom to be able to operate without any little thing meaning extended jail time.
There’s also an insider outside aspect where insider profession political influencer types get millions of dollars from the Gulf States or where ever, get caught not registering, and get to post hoc amend whatever and maybe pay a small fine while some small fry schuck blogger who gets approached a Russian front group called the Russian Institute of Literary Friendly Bloggers or whatever gets the book thrown at them.
All of that to say I see the problems with the law but I don’t think it’s a mere free speech issue and I see the government’s interest in knowing who’s running propoganda campaigns on American soil. Just like just because there’s not a bright line between bribery and influence I don’t agree with the Supreme Court and everything short of exchanging sacks of money with dollar signs on them counts as free speech
4 Likes
Yes
Do you agree with Citizens United?
Yes
In 1940, Viereck launched a scheme in which he “paid members of Congress to take propaganda from the Hitler government — he’d literally get it from the German embassy — and deliver it in Congress in floor speeches. Then he’d use their offices’ franking privileges to get thousands, in some cases millions, of reprints of this Nazi propaganda. He would mail it out, at taxpayer expense, all over the United States.”[20] The key members of Congress working with Viereck in this scheme were Sen. Ernest Lundeen,[21] Rep. Hamilton Fish,[22] and Rep. Jacob Thorkelson.[23]
In 1941, Viereck was indicted in the U.S. for a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act when he set up his publishing house, Flanders Hall, in Scotch Plains, New Jersey.[24] In 1942, he was convicted of failing to register with the United States Department of State as a Nazi agent and sentenced to 2 to 6 years in prison.[25]
1 Like
What do you think that shows?
Was just reading about Nazi Germany’s propaganda in America before WW2 and thought it was ironic that the law was used to roll up one of the most infamous fascists in America.
1 Like
And sometimes the espionage act is used against actual spies. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t passed so Woodrow Wilson could imprison his political enemies and opponents of his war.
This belief, which transfers power from the direction of ‘one person = one vote’ towards "one dollar = one vote’ is certainly more fascist than people’s beliefs regarding foreign political influence laws.
1 Like