Canada has declared this group to be a terrorist group

[phoneutria]

yes, it is
i believe i made that very clear
that people caught planning violence should be dealt with
with all rigor of the law

where does that make it ok
to declare an entire organization of people to be terrorists?

...if the organization is actually terrorist.
I.e., if they plot destruction or advocate mass casualties to achieve their goals.

That was the point of my Walmart analogy… It is not the cashiers offering low prices, it is Walmart.

you know i've seen a lot of these violence videos
and what i saw was a protest
marching and waving flags and whatnot
standing across some counter-protest people
and then they go at it
mostly bare knucked dudes
fending off other dudes in black hoodies and batons
so these other dudes
with the batons
are they terrorists too?

cuz it doesn't look like these proud boys are just going out on their own
and setting cars on fire
and looting stores
(well, safe for the capitol thing of course)
it looks like there are people there to antagonize them

and about your argument
that their organization
they are terrorists
is that so?
because as far as I know there are still investigations ongoing
about the capitol incident
so the courts haven't even pronounced themselves about those individuals
let alone the organization itself
it is besides the point that they are extremist
that, they are
and repugnant
but as the supreme court of the US has it
even repugnant speech is protected speech
so gawd blesh the USA for that
i'll remember that next time i think it sucks
at least it's not canada

so is this organization
in their statute and manifest and whatnot
like al-qaeda and the likes
actual terrorist organizations?
have they officially gone on video to say
they want to kill as many americans as possible like al-qaeda?
have gone on video and beheaded hostages
for lack of that evidence
who gets to make that call?

cuz if this was really about violence
canada should have said something about antifa by now
no?

not that I want them to
i don't care for governments to be consistently awful
i'd rather they be consistently good
and respect the fundamental right of individuals
to be as repulsive in their speech as they would like to
and the correct response is not to silence them
it is to go to them and tell them that they are repulsive
using your own right to do so in turn

A ‘terrorist’ designation is not a federal decision on the content of their ideas, only the means of them.
E.g., Hezbollah is not a terrorist org because of its political goals; it’s because they blow themselves up in public.

something something hypocrisy
something something antifa

I suppose the Canadians saw this mob dressed in combat gear storming the capital wearing the same T-shirt logos and said, “fuck those well-prepared and similarly dressed idiots look like beginner terrorists”. Factually you can argue, “noooo, nooooooh, just two of them”. But its not my issue because I’m not debating about a particular group—-only the philosophical issue of free-speech boundaries.

it actually sounds exactly like you are debating a particular group
on the merits of a few individuals
i mean
unless you can produce these walmart memos you speak about

as to me
free speech boundaries is exactly what i am debating
that there shouldn't be any

Factually, I think that’s wrong, but it doesn’t matter. If 2 people in a group did terrorism stuff, then I’d consider the whole group terrorists if (1) they were the leadership, or (2) acting on the leadership directive or organizational philosophy. Secondly, the percentage of a membership that actually blows themselves up changes the threat-level of the group, but not the fact that they're terrorists.

ok then dude
glad that you made that clear
i will resoundingly disagree with you on this matter
hope that you never get elected for public office
and leave it at that

those people are subject to the law
but the group MUST NOT BE SILENCED

Silencing a group is different than preventing the non-violent expression of an idea.

right
and how does declaring a group to be terrorist do
in the way of preventing violence?
not a rhetorical question

slapping a hollywood villain label
on a section of the population
who are clearly already pretty pissed off
and feeling disenfranchised
i'm sure that will calm them right down
no way that will further polarize people
right on, canada.

[phoneutria]

read Bradenburg v. Ohio

[von Rivers]

you know i've seen a lot of these violence videos
and what i saw was a protest
marching and waving flags and whatnot
standing across some counter-protest people
and then they go at it
mostly bare knucked dudes
fending off other dudes in black hoodies and batons
so these other dudes
with the batons
are they terrorists too?

cuz it doesn't look like these proud boys are just going out on their own
and setting cars on fire
and looting stores
(well, safe for the capitol thing of course)
it looks like there are people there to antagonize them

What is your point? They should not be antagonized at a protest.

and about your argument
that their organization
they are terrorists

What argument?

it is besides the point that they are extremist
that, they are
and repugnant
but as the supreme court of the US has it
even repugnant speech is protected speech
so gawd blesh the USA for that
i'll remember that next time i think it sucks
at least it's not canada

Repugnant speech is allowed in Canada. Legally, we are stricter about hate speech that incites violence. But it's not a legal point, so that's irrelevant along with any court cases.

A ‘terrorist’ designation is not a federal decision on the content of their ideas, only the means of them.
E.g., Hezbollah is not a terrorist org because of its political goals; it’s because they blow themselves up in public.

something something hypocrisy
something something antifa

Read that sentence again. And btw, I haven't taken a position on either group. But read that sentence again before you go on about free speech and ideas being crushed by governments, and how Canada sucks.

free speech boundaries is exactly what i am debating
that there shouldn't be any

Well then I'll look in that other tread and that video, at some point.

Silencing a group is different than preventing the non-violent expression of an idea.

right
and how does declaring a group to be terrorist do
in the way of preventing violence?
not a rhetorical question

I suppose law enforcement would say it's easier for them to do their job. Less red tape, easier to warrant for infringing legal rights like privacy or trespassing or confiscating property, listening in on surveillance, or things like that. Is it even a designation made by politicans, or by homeland security recommendation?

no way that will further polarize people
right on, canada.

hold people accountable for what they do

[von Rivers]

Double

[d0rkyd00d]

Phoneutria's thought process is as disjointed as his sentence structure, good luck chasing down that rabbit hole!

[phoneutria]

and you are nothing but a disingenuous troll
you got an argument to make, you go on and make it
otherwise fuck off

[d0rkyd00d]

and you are nothing but a disingenuous troll
you got an argument to make, you go on and make it
otherwise fuck off

You talk a lot, but you don't say much. That's my argument.

[phoneutria]

Begone troll
Shoo

[phoneutria]

you know i've seen a lot of these violence videos
and what i saw was a protest
marching and waving flags and whatnot
standing across some counter-protest people
and then they go at it
mostly bare knucked dudes
fending off other dudes in black hoodies and batons
so these other dudes
with the batons
are they terrorists too?

cuz it doesn't look like these proud boys are just going out on their own
and setting cars on fire
and looting stores
(well, safe for the capitol thing of course)
it looks like there are people there to antagonize them

What is your point? They should not be antagonized at a protest.

they shouldn't
but if they do
and that's my point
both sides engaging in violence
deserve equal treatment

this would all be academical
if it wasn't for the fact that antifa has been breaking shit
all over the world
repeatedly
for almost a year

it has only been a few days since the capitol thing
and canada rushed to pull this stunt
have they declared themselves about antifa?

because if they haven't
then this isn't about violence at all
then this is about marginalizing a group
that is politically in disagreement with you

my point
again
is that either there is equal treatment
or there is discrimination

so get your shit together

and about your argument
that their organization
they are terrorists

What argument?

that the organization itself is terrorist
it says right there

it is besides the point that they are extremist
that, they are
and repugnant
but as the supreme court of the US has it
even repugnant speech is protected speech
so gawd blesh the USA for that
i'll remember that next time i think it sucks
at least it's not canada

Repugnant speech is allowed in Canada. Legally, we are stricter about hate speech that incites violence. But it's not a legal point, so that's irrelevant along with any court cases.

it absolutely is relevant
and it has everything to do with legality
because this is the process by which laws are passed
first you maneuver public interest
then you vote on it

why are you defending a slippery slope
whose destination is the loss of freedom of speech?

A ‘terrorist’ designation is not a federal decision on the content of their ideas, only the means of them.
E.g., Hezbollah is not a terrorist org because of its political goals; it’s because they blow themselves up in public.

something something hypocrisy
something something antifa

Read that sentence again. And btw, I haven't taken a position on either group. But read that sentence again before you go on about free speech and ideas being crushed by governments, and how Canada sucks.

no, you read my post again
i am specifically saying
that acting on a group while ignoring violence caused by another
makes this NOT ABOUT VIOLENCE
if this was about violence
canada would have declared antifa to be a terrorist organization
this is about a public show of condemnation of a political view

free speech boundaries is exactly what i am debating
that there shouldn't be any

Well then I'll look in that other tread and that video, at some point.

good, thanks

Silencing a group is different than preventing the non-violent expression of an idea.

right
and how does declaring a group to be terrorist do
in the way of preventing violence?
not a rhetorical question

I suppose law enforcement would say it's easier for them to do their job. Less red tape, easier to warrant for infringing legal rights like privacy or trespassing or confiscating property, listening in on surveillance, or things like that. Is it even a designation made by politicans, or by homeland security recommendation?

I recommend that you read up some analysis
there has been a lot written about it
about what the war on terror
did to the muslim population of the US
by what order of magnitude
the cases of entrapment
discrimination
wrongful arrests
outnumber any good that these classifications have done

which, again, baffles me
the same people who have been advocating for muslims for two decades
since 9/11
are the ones with the bloodshot eyes now
calling for limitations on free speech
excusing corporate abuse of power
and applauding the marginalization of a group
it's like mass amnesia
liberals in the last year or so have gone full retard
and it's hard for me to wrap my head around it
does anyone on the left have any principles?

no way that will further polarize people
right on, canada.

hold people accountable for what they do

for that we have the law

[phoneutria]

Antifa look to disrupt alt-right events and far-right speakers. They use a variety of tactics to do this – including shouting and chanting and forming human chains to block off right-wing demonstrators. Some are unapologetic about their online tactics, which include monitoring the far right on social media. They also release personal information about their opponents online, commonly known as "doxxing" – they’ve gotten some alt-right supporters fired from their jobs after identifying them online.

Their willingness to use violence marks out Antifa from many other left-wing activists, although the Antifa members we spoke to said they denounce the use of weapons and violent direct action. They said if violence does occur, it’s as a form of self-defence. They also make historical arguments to justify their position. For instance, they ask, what if opponents of the German Nazi Party had been more forceful in their opposition in the 1930s, could World War Two and the Holocaust have been averted?

Antifa have been directly and sometimes physically confronting the far right on the streets and, in some cases, they have been successful in postponing, cutting short or cancelling rallies and speeches up and down America

source is BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articl ... out-antifa

i haven't been following very closely to be honest
but other people here might be able to tell you more precisely
if the proud boys are going out to left ring rallies
to incite violence

every instance I have seen of involvement in protest brawls
these were Trump rallies
it is antifa that goes out of its way
to go to Trump supporter protests
and antagonize them to the point where a fight ensues

if these people are gross or not in their believes
or stupid or whatever
it does not matter!!
they are within their constitutional right to speak and to assembly
they are not terrorists

[von Rivers]

that the organization itself is terrorist
it says right there

If you respect my intelligence, then respect it enough to go back and re-read what I said.

it has only been a few days since the capitol thing
and canada rushed to pull this stunt
have they declared themselves about antifa?

because if they haven't
then this isn't about violence at all
then this is about marginalizing a group
that is politically in disagreement with you

1. The capitol riot was a month ago.
2. Proud Boys are a Canadian group founded years ago. They were known for counter-protesting Indigenous land-claim protests, and a requirement of their full membership was getting into a fight with a protester. They are just now being called terrorists by Canada. So, it has to do with the capitol riot, not their ideology. Your inference is bullshit. The Ku Klux Klan is not a terrorist organization in Canada. There’s no content view in the Canadian definition of terrorism; it is politically/religiously motivated violence. Even if you’re a socialist group like the FLQ were; they were designated terrorists in Canada.

I can hear you... “Well what about Antifa!? Antiiffaa!!?” Maybe they’ll be next, if they do terrorism shit.

At the capitol riot there were pipe bombs set at offices, threats of hanging, assault rifles, somebody brought a noose and zip ties… that’s terrorism shit. That’s Boko Haram terrorism shit. That’s Boko Haram terrorism shit that made it on my radar of not following American news from here. Apparently, the Canadian officials think they have intelligence about Proud Boys enough to warrant the designation, as well as some other groups.

it absolutely is relevant
and it has everything to do with legality
because this is the process by which laws are passed
first you maneuver public interest
then you vote on it

Free-speech is a moral issue, because it is a value. You may want law to codify values/morality, (since you should be proud that the Constitution/law protects free-speech). But free-speech is codified in law because it is actually valuable. And it is not actually valuable just because law/Constitution protect it. It has nothing to do with maneuvering public opinion, unless you are a relativist.

why are you defending a slippery slope
whose destination is the loss of freedom of speech?

It’s not slippery, it’s flat and stormy. Here is where I live: There are multiple values, not just freedom of speech. Sometimes they conflict. Sometimes they need to be balanced against each other. (There never was a moral issue that was not an ‘issue’ between values). Since I am a pluralist about value, free-speech is not the one true god. But it matters. Btw, aren't there possible exceptions to free speech rules in the States? (fighting words, libel, obscenity, threats, lies, professional responsibilities?). E.g., posting retractions or losing your property over libel (denial of free-speech about lying and causing harm), or firing a doctor who lies to patients for shits and giggles, or firing a teacher who preaches hate, things like that? Or do you truly have one ring to rule them all?


Also: When you swing wildly at nobody in particular, who are you referring to? With brutal claims like “may have no principals”, “brainless mouthpiece”, “fully retarded liberals”. Who are you speaking to?

[perpetualburn]

in this thread
grown ass people
in a free country
acting like civil disobedience just got invented

The issue is that people like Peter K want all "civil disobedience" which does not agree with their political views to be designated as "terrorism." Being designated a terrorist means all your Constitutionally protected rights gets instantly stripped away. Nothing then stands between you and the crushing power of the state. What's most cringe worthy is how people like Peter K collectively give themselves a pat on the back ( as if they were standing up to the bad guys! ) as they virtue-signal for the consolidation of governmental powers (which will just as likely be used against them). It's like watching a demented parade of imbeciles honking their horns for peace, love and unity as they march towards totalitarianism... And they find all this "fabulous!" (exclaimed with a gay lisp)

this is what it comes down to
the utter hypocrisy of the people
who have been all about defending the oppressed
the minorities
people who they feel don't have a voice
gloating as they witness sections of society being silenced
because they're on the other side now

which goes to show
that they don't have any fucking principles at all
no real values to stand behind
all they are
is a mouthpiece for one party or another
just a brainless barely functional mass to maneuver as the party sees fit

Member of Congress acknowledges his "white privilege" and throws himself at the mercy of his "colleagues of color" in what can only be described as a bizarre, woke humiliation ritual. He starts to crack around 1:17. What type of person actually finds this emotionally persuasive? What is cathartic or "healing" about these infantile group therapy sessions? Emasculating and humiliating yourself in public is not only encouraged and cheered on, but ironically demanded with masochistic fervor ( i.e. "You better show yourself to be soft or else!"). I think what triggers the left more than anything is the appearance of unyielding strength.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1357488834397765635

"Trust not those cunning waters of his eyes, For villany is not without such rheum; And he, long traded in it, makes it seem Like rivers of remorse and innocency" - Shakespeare

[phoneutria]

that the organization itself is terrorist
it says right there

If you respect my intelligence, then respect it enough to go back and re-read what I said.

i'll ask again then
where is the evidence that this organization is institutionally terrorist?

it has only been a few days since the capitol thing
and canada rushed to pull this stunt
have they declared themselves about antifa?

because if they haven't
then this isn't about violence at all
then this is about marginalizing a group
that is politically in disagreement with you

1. The capitol riot was a month ago.
2. Proud Boys are a Canadian group founded years ago. They were known for counter-protesting Indigenous land-claim protests, and a requirement of their full membership was getting into a fight with a protester. They are just now being called terrorists by Canada. So, it has to do with the capitol riot, not their ideology. Your inference is bullshit. The Ku Klux Klan is not a terrorist organization in Canada. There’s no content view in the Canadian definition of terrorism; it is politically/religiously motivated violence. Even if you’re a socialist group like the FLQ were; they were designated terrorists in Canada.

I can hear you... “Well what about Antifa!? Antiiffaa!!?” Maybe they’ll be next, if they do terrorism shit.

that is all i am saying
that their antics are on par with antifa
and the country acted on one and not the other
that is bias
you think it's bullshit because FQL was socialist
but they were also separatist
so if you want an example of an organization
that was declared terrorist
and that ideologically aligns with the government
look for another one

and i am not calling for antifa to be declared a terrorist organization
i'm calling for everyone to be able to speak and assemble
if people want to wear a polo shirt and march
they have the right to do that
and if in the midst of that someone throws a punch or breaks something
there are laws for that

At the capitol riot there were pipe bombs set at offices, threats of hanging, assault rifles, somebody brought a noose and zip ties… that’s terrorism shit. That’s Boko Haram terrorism shit. That’s Boko Haram terrorism shit that made it on my radar of not following American news from here. Apparently, the Canadian officials think they have intelligence about Proud Boys enough to warrant the designation, as well as some other groups.

seriously?
Boko Haram has killed thousands of people
and displaced over 2 million people from their homes

...zip ties?

and you don't think this is about maneuvering public opinion

it absolutely is relevant
and it has everything to do with legality
because this is the process by which laws are passed
first you maneuver public interest
then you vote on it

Free-speech is a moral issue, because it is a value. You may want law to codify values/morality, (since you should be proud that the Constitution/law protects free-speech). But free-speech is codified in law because it is actually valuable. And it is not actually valuable just because law/Constitution protect it. It has nothing to do with maneuvering public opinion, unless you are a relativist.

to me, yes
as i am sure you have noticed
i do consider freedom (including freedom of speech) to be not only valuable
but the most valuable human right
and something worth fighting for and sacrificing for

to the people making efforts to put limitations on free speech
by means of creating a fear of terrorism
that might not be the case

so you're conflating things here
i'm not the one who is a relativist
my position is very clear on the value of free speech
that doesn't change the fact that there are people spinning shit
to further their ideology

why are you defending a slippery slope
whose destination is the loss of freedom of speech?

It’s not slippery, it’s flat and stormy. Here is where I live: There are multiple values, not just freedom of speech. Sometimes they conflict. Sometimes they need to be balanced against each other. (There never was a moral issue that was not an ‘issue’ between values). Since I am a pluralist about value, free-speech is not the one true god. But it matters. Btw, aren't there possible exceptions to free speech rules in the States? (fighting words, libel, obscenity, threats, lies, professional responsibilities?). E.g., posting retractions or losing your property over libel (denial of free-speech about lying and causing harm), or firing a doctor who lies to patients for shits and giggles, or firing a teacher who preaches hate, things like that? Or do you truly have one ring to rule them all?

if we have to make that self-evident point more obvious
we have laws against defamation and libel
because it is truthful speech that the law protects
when there is a factual thing that can be proven truth or lie
those matters can be taken to court
when they are subjective such as a person's opinions and convictions
that will never be the case

on the matter of value pluralism
you are free to make the case if you wish
for which value is more important than freedom of speech
thankfully
because you have freedom of speech

Also: When you swing wildly at nobody in particular, who are you referring to? With brutal claims like “may have no principals”, “brainless mouthpiece”, “fully retarded liberals”. Who are you speaking to?

this is a discussion board
i am talking to whoever is reading

[von Rivers]

i'll ask again then
where is the evidence that this organization is institutionally terrorist?

You have difficulty admitting when you are wrong, so I will move on and answer your question.

In a criminal case, it would be with police.
In a terrorist case, it would be with CSIS, I think.
Whatever they have, it should be publicized in court, I would hope.
But if you’re wondering why any planning and instructions for violence (I mean, rising to the level of terrorism) from the leader would not be publicized publicly… well why would you wonder that?

that is all i am saying
that their antics are on par with antifa
and the country acted on one and not the other
that is bias
you think it's bullshit because FQL was socialist
but they were also separatist
so if you want an example of an organization
that was declared terrorist
and that ideologically aligns with the government
look for another one

That is not my point. Here. Here is a mirror:

Facts:
- Proud Boys have agitated with violence for years, and Canada did not call them terrorists.
- Capitol riot.
- Shortly after Capitol riot, Canada calls them terrorists.
- Canada says it was the Capitol riot.
You: “It must just be politician’s bias”.

to me, yes
as i am sure you have noticed
i do consider freedom (including freedom of speech) to be not only valuable
but the most valuable human right
and something worth fighting for and sacrificing for

to the people making efforts to put limitations on free speech
by means of creating a fear of terrorism
that might not be the case

so you're conflating things here
i'm not the one who is a relativist
my position is very clear on the value of free speech
that doesn't change the fact that there are people spinning shit
to further their ideology

As I have said, blocking a violent group (from things like fundraising, recruiting, propagating) is not the same as silencing the non-violent expression of an idea.

and i am not calling for antifa to be declared a terrorist organization
i'm calling for everyone to be able to speak and assemble
if people want to wear a polo shirt and march
they have the right to do that
and if in the midst of that someone throws a punch or breaks something
there are laws for that

Oh right, I forgot I was against speech and assembly.

if we have to make that self-evident point more obvious
we have laws against defamation and libel
because it is truthful speech that the law protects
when there is a factual thing that can be proven truth or lie
those matters can be taken to court
when they are subjective such as a person's opinions and convictions
that will never be the case

Yea, exactly: ‘truth’ is sometimes more important than freedom of speech.
It’s why your freedom of speech is limited in all kids of venues, like courts, schools, and scientific journals. It used to be in the news, but apparently now just any opinionated fuck can speak publicly, and and flood the airwaves with noise and opinion, untouchably. Btw, why would opinions about values be untouchable? Can they not be right or wrong also? But anyways, so now you have a case.

In other news…

Conceptually, what counts as ‘terrorism’ is an interesting question for someone. For instance; what scale of violence counts, how do you attribute it to a decentralized (e.g., Antifa) vs top-down organization (e.g., Proud Boys) structure, what to say if some members do it and not others. But this is not my favourite topic. Thanks for the replies, the last word is yours if you'd like. Peace out.

[phoneutria]

don't need it
peace

[Peter Kropotkin]

Peter Kropotkin: in Canada, they have declared the "Proud boys" a domestic terror group.....

I hope we do the same here and then include any white supremist group
like the GOP and the KKK, as domestic terrorist organization........

P You're a troll.

K: I had to look up what a troll means...it is a "social media troll is someone
who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other
users"

I stated a fact about Canada and I stated my opinion about that fact...
if you feel that is being a "troll" that says a lot more about you then it does about
me...

Kropotkin: while the right is stuck and frozen into being cavemen.. because they can't
do anything else...that is all they have, violence and hatred and anger and insults

so, prove to yourself, not to them, they aren't worth the effort, but prove to
yourself that you are human, all too human and make the choices that
reflect that you are a higher/better human being.... that is what being liberal
is all about.....

making smart, rational, human choices that lift us above being just mere
animals that only react with violence and insults.. because they can't do
anything else but react with hatred and anger and violence to any situation.....
show the world and yourself that you are above the hatred and anger
and violence that so dominates the right... show the world what a liberal
really stands for.....
peace and love and hope and justice and charity and honor and
connection and freedom and creativity and humanity and ....etc, etc...
a list of liberal/ human values...[/quote]

P: You "hope" the US designates MILLIONS of Americans as possible TERRORISTS... The hypocrisy and moral grandstanding is nauseating... Imagine trying to claim the moral high ground and be a voice of "reason" while you cheer on the predatory targeting of Americans by corrupt, agenda-driven federal agencies. Talk about a sheep in wolf's clothing (not that Peter K is a wolf).... Peter K is just another example of a liberal who cloaks his true desire for blood in the white-laced language of pseudo innocence. Of course, I'm sure he is aware of what he is doing... thus my designation of him as a troll.

K: Millions? try a few thousand at best...and "Predatory targeting of Americans"
now, who is being the "troll"? and which right wing assumption should I point out
first, the "corrupt agenda- driven federal agencies" or the the attack upon the "Liberal"
as being out for "blood"? as you have taken my post personally, I am guessing
you are feeling a bit persecuted.. guilty feelings perhaps?

P To be clear, NO ONE can wage a war without being complicit WITH terror (i.e. you can't wage a war ON terror without being complicit with it yourself... I'm sure the actual phrasing of "the war on terror" is just meant to further confuse and create even more chaos, adding only a further psychological element of terror to the already terrible nature of war). However, since war IS becoming more psychological in nature, I suppose it makes sense that the "war on terror" would finally turn inwards towards the home itself.[/quote]

K: this paragraph makes little sense...I can't be sure who exactly you are talking about,
me? or perhaps the domestic terrorists who stormed the capital or perhaps "proud boys"
for I never used the words, "the war on terror", so I am not exactly sure what you
are referring to? perhaps you are referring to the voices in your head? I really don't know...
all I can say when those voices say, "go to the light" resist doing that....it doesn't end well

Kropotkin

[iambiguous]

as i am sure you have noticed
i do consider freedom (including freedom of speech) to be not only valuable
but the most valuable human right
and something worth fighting for and sacrificing for

to the people making efforts to put limitations on free speech
by means of creating a fear of terrorism
that might not be the case

But, given any particular situation, how far will most objectivists go in examining the existential parameters of their own value judgments? They demand the freedom to make points about terrorism but that freedom often becomes embedded in the assumption that while others have the freedom to disagree with them, to the extent that they do disagree with them, they are wrong.

And to the extent one thinks like that is the extent to which they are likely to embrace attempts by the government to censor, censure or to go all out after those that they insist are the terrorists.

And then the part where in discussing means rather than ends one person's terrorist is another person's revolutionary. If, in America, the racist, anti-Semitic, ultra conservative fascists actually gain control over the government are those groups like antifa still terrorists when the organize to bring the fascists down?

so you're conflating things here
i'm not the one who is a relativist
my position is very clear on the value of free speech
that doesn't change the fact that there are people spinning shit
to further their ideology

As with von rivers, she's not a relativist. Just describe to her any set of circumstances and she can provide you with an air tight argument that is very clear regarding what speech is or is not free and which acts are or are not those of a terrorist.

Then it comes down to whether her convictions here seen by her as true "universally" or only individual context by individual context.