Anarchist Websites And Forums Under Attack

Originally posted by spiritdancer

Originally posted by marg6043
I feel that the FBI have legit reason to get in the internet and search for Anarchist sites and possible suspects.

No way!! First of all I run a web hosting company and as long as it is legal and does not bog down my server it's fine with me. It's backed up by the good ole constitution

Anarchism is anti-constitution, and arguably there fore anarchist groups are criminal merely by existing.

, and I am not giving any info on my customers. 99% of people that post on sites like this, have an opinion that the "mainstream" thinks is looney, we need an outlet for intelligent conversations about real issues that others just can't grasp.

Fair enough, but if they are actual anarchists then the governement has good reason to break them up.

If I had an incident like a murderer on the site or server I would cooperate, but just to investigate people because their views are different, no way.

Anarchists aren't made illegal because they are different, its because they are criminal. Anarchy is the radical destruction of the state and the violent overthrow of the government, ie a criminal organization.

amethyst
But I think it's a bit ridiculous, going after people who may prefer anarchy. Let them state their views

Why?

but I'm not opposed to anarchists exercising their First Amendment rights.

If an anarchist could somehow just be an 'intellectual' and not an actual anarchist, then fair enough, just like one can be a fundamentalist religionist but not be a radical. But, in general, anarchists are criminals, or dolts who don't know what anarchism is. Anarchists are like Radical Jihadis. The very existence of the group should be illegal, why wait permit them to organize, arm, and only arrest them after they attack??

Originally posted by Nygdan
Anarchism is anti-constitution, and arguably there fore anarchist groups are criminal merely by existing.

Horse hockey. As long as it is arrived at via Constitutional means, it is not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the means for its own nullification.

Yes, I'm scared of my government.

About as scared as an old bearded Saudi Arabian guy with liver disease who blew up a major U.S. landmark.

but I'm not opposed to anarchists exercising their First Amendment rights.

If an anarchist could somehow just be an 'intellectual' and not an actual anarchist, then fair enough, just like one can be a fundamentalist religionist but not be a radical.

That's pretty much what I mean, intellectuals...people who just say why they think as they do. I for one do not want anarchy. Apparently someone has issues with the government if they want anarchy, and I'm rather interested as to a) why anarchy and b) what their grievances are.

I want a constitutional republic, but we're headed for fascism.

[edit on 5/16/2005 by Amethyst]

Can anarchy and communism themselves be illegal?

www.csulb.edu...
# Schenck v. U. S., 249 U.S. 46 (1919): Clear and Present Danger

1. clear danger is one in which there is a direct relationship between the expression and the danger.
2. present danger is one that occurs immediately.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a [person] in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes)

# Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925): bad tendency test

1. prevents all speech which has a tendency to bring about acts which violate the law;
2. these words imply urging to action.


# Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957): clear and imminent danger

1. advocacy that may ultimately lead to violent revolution is too remote from concrete action.
2. essential distinction is that people must be urged to do something, now or in the near future, rather than merely to believe in something.
3. clear danger is direct relationship between speech and action


# Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

1. advocacy of racial strife at a Ku Klux Klan rally.
2. threatening speech is protected;
3. government must prove incitment or imminent lawless action.

emphasis added

Most importantly,

]The Smith Act
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Also

The Internal Security Act
The Internal Security Act, also known as the McCarran-Wood Act, required registration with the Attorney General of the American Communist Party and affiliated organizations. Other sections of the act declared it unlawful to conspire to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, to conceal membership of the American Communist Party when seeking government employment or to use a United States passport. Communists and members of other organizations considered to be dangerous to public safety could also be excluded or deported from the United States.

Also, the constitution itself forbids the abolition of things like Individual Rights and Private Property, communism eliminates both, and anarchims at least eliminates the former.
True, its a tricky subject. We are, in effect, discussing Anarchism right now. Is this permited? I'd say, yes, obviously, we are not anarchists. So why go against anarchists? Because in order to be an anarchist, one must espose, urge, and arguably work torwards, anarchism, which would be a crime.
Similarly, facists and nazis should be just as illegal as communists and anarchists, since they too require the abolition of private property and the rights of the individual, and the violent destruction of the state.

The bottom line is tho, in all probablility, the feds are monitoring all sorts of sites, and when anarchists start organizing to do something illegal, they crack down on them, just like when militias start arming themselves and fortifying their compounds, the feds come knocking to check their gun permits.

Checking militias' gun permits?

What the hey--the Second Amendment IS your gun permit!

You know, I already see this gummint going towards a dictatorship....

Originally posted by Nygdan
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Note the bold. It is only illegal if you advocate violent overthrow/assassination. Advocating anarchy, per se, is not illegal as long as it is arrived at through Constitutional means, just as dictatorship is not illegal as long as it is arrived at via Constitutional means. To discuss the merits of anarchy can not be considered unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination. (ok, Bush's imagination yes, but not a person with an actual brain).

Anarchists' DO NOT support a violent overthrow of the government. Or any kind of violence.

If they do then they are stupid. Anarchists have debated violence for many years and most came to the conclusion that violence is a tool of the state and should be avoided.
Most true Anarchist are pacifists. Violence breeds violence and is NOT a natural part of Human nature.
If you look at the history of Anarchism you'll see that any violence carried out by Anarchists was in self defence only.

Anarchism has many enemies, it is misrepresented by the state.

"Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that." Alexander Berkman

"Individualist anarchism repudiated the use of violence as a strategy to achieve any political or personal end other than self-defense." Wendy McElroy

"You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an argument for it." Noam Chomsky (American Anarchist)

"Anarchism, more than any other social theory, values human life above things. All Anarchists agree with Tolstoy in this fundamental truth: if the production of any commodity necessitates the sacrifice of human life, society should do without that commodity, but it can not do without that life. That, however, nowise indicates that Anarchism teaches submission. How can it, when it knows that all suffering, all misery, all ills, result from the evil of submission?" Emma Goldman" During the Chicago Anarchist trials

sunsite.berkeley.edu...


Please do some reading before you act like you know all about something.
It's easy to tell those people that only bother to read what's placed in front of them by the state. How about making an effort to look beyond the states biased slanted take on everything?

[edit on 17/5/2005 by ANOK]

This is total Bull Crap!

1) The US government has NO RIGHT what so ever to close sites that appose their democracy. They pride themselves on Freedom. But they destroy concepts that they THINK is too much freedom. In doing so, they are destroying their OWN concept of freedom. By that I am talking about Freedom of Speech.

2) The government clearly stereotyping! Just because someone/something is anarchist, they automatically assume that they are dangerous and guarantee a shooting.

I am deeply offended.

Originally posted by spamandham
Horse hockey. As long as it is arrived at via Constitutional means, it is not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the means for its own nullification.

Indeed, and that nuilification is not violent and radicla overthrow. Obviously the Consitution doesn't support terrorism and mass murder in order to have it over thrown.

What the hey--the Second Amendment IS your gun permit!

The second am provides for well organized militias to be armed. This says nothing about not having gun permits and not inspecting militias.

spamandham
is only illegal if you advocate violent overthrow/assassination

Precisely. Anarchism is assasination and violent overthrow.

Advocating anarchy, per se, is not illegal as long as it is arrived at through Constitutional mean

Not possible.

as dictatorship is not illegal as long as it is arrived at via Constitutional means.

The constitution permits congress or state assemblies to ammend the constitution, as such it can be ammended so as to be dissolved or ammended so as to establish a hereditary dictatorship, fair enough. No group advocates anarchy via ammendment. Anarchists are anti-constiution, they aren't going to change the constitution in order to bring about anarchy, they are going to bring about anarchy by bombings, assasinations, and murder.

To discuss the merits of anarchy can not be considered unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination

Correct. We aren't talking about discussion groups, we are talking about anarchist networks. Undoubtedly there is lots of discussion there, but any group that is an Anarchist Group is, de facto, trying to violently overthrow the government.

anok
If they do then they are stupid

Nail, head, hit.

Please do some reading before you act like you know all about something.

I am well aware of what the anarchist movement is all about. Anarchism is about, fundamentally, the destruction of the state. ITs alligned with Communism generally because of these concerns over commodities being valued over individuals. Anarchy and Communism, along with Nazism, were made illegal because they seek the violent overthrow of the state, that are Radical Revolutionaries, radical don't work within the system, they work from outside of it in order to destroy it. Marxism doesn't call for peaceable transtitions to communism, it calls for a communist seizure of the state, an actual physical war between the classes, and a dictatorship of the mob. IE, the destruction of the state and the erection of a socialism. Anarchism calls for the destruction of the state and no erection of anything else. Anarchism, obviously, can not be acheived peacably. People, somewhere, will allways resist it, especially the officers of the current government, sworn, by legal oath, to defend it. The few occasions where it was tried out were either brought about by an anarchic revolt, or there was already a war that destroyed the ruling system, and anarchy replaced it. There is no such thing as peaceful anarchism, tho there might be people who like to think of themselves as anarchists and pacifists.

gear
The US government has NO RIGHT what so ever to close sites that appose their democracy.

The US government has a legal responsibility to defend the government against violent upheval. A group discussing changing the constitution, even generally replacing the government, is fine, but not a group that advocates the violent destruction of the state, whether its a communist, nazi, anarchist, or radical right wing militia.

The government clearly stereotyping!

I hate to break it to you, but 'stereotyping' is not illegal.

Just because someone/something is anarchist, they automatically assume that they are dangerous and guarantee a shooting.

Indeed, they assume, and are generally correct in that assumption. All anarchist groups need to be destroyed. They are at war with the state.

I am deeply offended.

So?
I don't mean to be flippant, but, what difference does it make that you are offended? Everyone is offended over some thing or another.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Precisely. Anarchism is assasination and violent overthrow.

You are woefully uninformed. Anarchy per se has nothing to do with violent overthrows or assasinations. In general, it is nothing more than the absence of a monopoly on the use of force (a state). Do some anarchists advocate violence? Sure some do, but they are the vast minority and do not represent the general principles of self rule.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by spamandham
Advocating anarchy, per se, is not illegal as long as it is arrived at through Constitutional mean

Not possible.

Of course it's possible. All that need happen is for a Constitutional Amendment to be passed that nullifies the federal government, followed by a similar measure to nullify a state government. Is this likely? No, unless all hell breaks loose and the government is clearly to blame. But it certainly is possible, completely legal, and nonviolent.

Originally posted by Nygdan
No group advocates anarchy via ammendment. Anarchists are anti-constiution, they aren't going to change the constitution in order to bring about anarchy, they are going to bring about anarchy by bombings, assasinations, and murder.

Again, do a little actual research before drawing uninformed conclusions. Many anarchist groups advocate the ends, not the means, with the implied assumption that the means must be peaceful from the anarchist's perspective.

Philosophically speaking, it is impossible to achieve anarchy through violence. To attempt to do so, you would have to first basically set up a central authority of some kind to defeat the standing state. But, someone willing to do that will not be willing to give that power up in the event they succeeded. You would end up just replacing one tyrant with another.


[edit on 17-5-2005 by spamandham]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Precisely. Anarchism is assasination and violent overthrow.

You obviously didn't read any of the quotes I posted.
Quotes from Anarchists.

Anarchists are not stupid. We know a violent overthrow of the government doesn't work. Without the full consent of the population an overthrow would only be replace by another "authority".

Anarchism is about self rule, it is NOT about violence.

Those are the lies of the state. Perpetuated, just like the terrorist threat, to make people believe that the government is necessary and without them we would not be safe. The state fears the Anarchists (or any group/individual that could threaten their power).
That's why our history is full of people like Manson, Sid Vicious, David Koresh, McVeigh. People used to discredit groups that are deemed a threat. I'm not saying these ppl were necessarily innocent, but they were used to demonise certain groups in the public eye. Groups that were a threat to the status quo, but not evil and violent as they were made to appear.
In other words do your own research, don't just except what the state feeds you as "truth".

How many real Anarchists do you know? I'll take a guess, none.
It's the same sort of ignorance that causes racism.

[edit on 17/5/2005 by ANOK]

Originally posted by spamandham
in general, it is nothing more than the absence of a monopoly on the use of force (a state).

Please explain how the state is destroyed without violence, short of everyone, everyone being philsophical anarchists.

Originally posted by Nygdan
All that need happen is for a Constitutional Amendment to be passed that nullifies the federal government,

That would not do it. You'd still have state goverments.


followed by a similar measure to nullify a state government. Is this likely? No, unless all hell breaks loose and the government is clearly to blame.
Even then its well nigh immpossible to pass, and clearly, even if it does, the Feds aren't going to allow it.

But it certainly is possible, completely legal, and nonviolent.

Its not legal, because the Constitution can't override man's Inalienable Rights. Anarchy requires, amoung other things, the abolition of private property, which is one of those inalienable rights that the constitution makes note of. The Constitution doesn't have the authority to override those rights.

Many anarchist groups advocate the ends, not the means, with the implied assumption that the means must be peaceful from the anarchist's perspective.

Honestly, they can imply whatever they want. Anarchy requires the violent overthrow of the state, just like marxist communism requires Class Warfare and the destruction of the State and Authorities. Its also rather silly to say that anarchists are perfectly allowed to plot the destruction of a nation, but that the government can't shut down their websites.

Philosophically speaking, it is impossible to achieve anarchy through violence.

To attempt to do so, you would have to first basically set up a central authority of some kind to defeat the standing state. But, someone willing to do that will not be willing to give that power up in the event they succeeded.
You understand that thats a pragmatic limitation, not a philosophical one?

Regardless, its not immpossible to achieve anarchy thru violence, and short of everyone becoming an anarchist, its going to require violence. Furthermore, it requires that everyone become an anarchist, and that everyone afterwords remain an anarchist, and that everyone is similarly a pacifist. Also, even if anarchy in the US was acheived, those things that peopel destroyed, States, from outside, woudl get invovled, invade, and foist their own state upon them. So, short of everyone, on the planet, now and forever, becomming pacifistic anarchists, its immpossible, and even it that occured, it would still be, at least in the sense of inalienable rights, illegal.

Anok
You obviously didn't read any of the quotes I posted.

I read your quotes, I understand they are from Anarchists. They are irrelevant. Anarchism requires the destruction of the state, it require violence, and its history clearly reveals that.

Anarchism is about self rule, it is NOT about violence.

In the utopia world where its been completed, sure. In order to make it, one needs death and destruction.

How many real Anarchists do you know?

I've only met, online, one anarcho-syndicalist.

It's the same sort of ignorance that causes racism.

Interesting. Is that how you came to be a racist then?


Don't imply that I am a racist, even in such a cowardly and backhandedly way, I am not.

If you think the anarchist movement is pacifistic, then you are the one wallowing in ignorance. Noam Chomsky might not be violent, but actual operative anarchists are. Historically, they've almost exclusively used violence as their means. And even theoretically, anarchy is immpossible without violence. Violdence is needed to overthrow the current authority, and violence is what other people will bring out after the state has been destroyed. Anarchy is a nice thing to consider philosophically, tho I suggest that even then its ultimately something worth rejecting, but its down right silly to actually make a stab at it.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Interesting. Is that how you came to be a racist then?

Don't imply that I am a racist, even in such a cowardly and backhandedly way, I am not.

If you think the anarchist movement is pacifistic, then you are the one wallowing in ignorance.

Dude you don't know the first thing about Anarchists, sorry but your interpretation of Anarchism is WRONG.

I didn't imply you are a racist, read my post again you can clearly see I'm just pointing out that ignorance of a subject is what causes people to HATE.
Whether that hate is for someones colour or someones beliefs.
Why would I call you a racist, it has nothing to do with this thread?

It is obvious from you openly calling me racist, that you are just reacting in an uneducated manner. Ignorant of the subject at hand. Only getting out of your reading what you want to hear, what fits your indoctrinated thinking.

Look at history, in the 80's there was a HUGE rise in Anarchism thinking sparked by bands like CRASS. Anarcho-Pacifism being the main interest. Non-Violent direct action. Put into practise in things like the "Stop the City" protests in London. NON-VIOLENT...

I've been involved in Anarchism since around 1978, so don't tell me I'm ignorant. I know more about Anarchism than you'll ever hope to understand.

Some would argue that the only way to overthrow the government is through violence. But Anarchists realise a long time ago (cause they're smart) that violence only breeds violence and seeing it is the violence of the state that we want rid of, being violent our selfs would be a contradiction.

You are confusing the dictionary definition of Anarchy as chaos and disorder with Anarchism which is self rule, cooperation and unity.

Do you even know anything of Anarchist history?

A violent insurrection of the government is pointless. What would replace it?
Most Anarchists agree that liberation can only be achieved through education and taking the government out of your life. We don't need to use violence, government only has power 'cause we allow it.

History has proven that violent revolutions don't work because they are always replaced by another tyrant.

You can scream all day about how Anarchists are violent if it fits your government supplied thoughts, but it don't make it so.

There are plenty of books available on the subject if you really want to learn.
I'll even supply a link to a good book store for you.

Here ya go: www.akpress.org...

"Government is violence" Leo Tolstoy

"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." Leo Tolstoy

"I build no system. I ask an end to privilege, the abolition of slavery, equality of rights, and the reign of law. Justice, nothing else. That is the alpha and omega of my argument." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first self-labeled anarchist

"From my point of view the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no Anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what Anarchism stands for..."Joseph Labadie, Anarchism and Crime

"ANARCHISM:--The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."
Emma Goldman, "What is Anarchy?"

"AnarchY might be imaginary -- meaning that we don't now and may never have a society without coercive rulers -- but anarchISM is a value-set, like pacifism or Christian love, or Buddhist empathy. It is not a description of the world, but a standard for judging situations within the world."
bkMarcus, Isn't Anarchism Unrealistic?

"The emotions of the ignorant man are continuously kept at a pitch by the most blood-curdling stories about Anarchism. Not a thing too outrageous to be employed against this philosophy and its exponents. Therefore Anarchism represents to the unthinking what the proverbial bad man does to the child,--a black monster bent on swallowing everything; in short, destruction and violence."Emma Goldman, "What is Anarchy?"

"The measure of the state's success is that the word anarchy frightens people, while the word state does not."Joseph Sobran, Anarchy without Fear

How many more quotes do you need to see the truth?

[edit on 17/5/2005 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by spamandham
in general, it is nothing more than the absence of a monopoly on the use of force (a state).

Please explain how the state is destroyed without violence, short of everyone, everyone being philsophical anarchists.

I've already explained it twice - via Constitutional amendment. But even if you were correct that everyone had to embrace anarchy, that still does not make it impossible, only improbable. But so what? The discussion was not about the liklihood of anarchy, but rather it was about your rediculous assertion that anarchists by definition support violence.

I tell you what, since it's your rediculous assertion, and you've chosen to embrace ignorance rather than actually educate yourself, why don't you support it with some hard evidence rather than just some BS handwaving.

Your assertion is assumed false until you do so.

Why does it seem that history is repeating,....again.

McCarthyism

The term has since become synonymous with any government activity which seeks to suppress unfavorable political or social views, often by limiting or suspending civil rights under the pretext of maintaining national security.

So desnt this seem to correlate?

Originally posted by MajicThe Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" of "persons, houses, papers, and effects" and has been upheld and applied in a wide variety of cases since the founding of the nation.

the internet is public, anything out in the open can be searched, and if you consent they can search, once in they can search anything else legally.

Originally posted by spamandham

Horse hockey. As long as it is arrived at via Constitutional means, it is not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the means for its own nullification.

thats a lie

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Organized Anarchy And Other Absurd Oxymorons

It's both interesting and instructive to watch the debate unfold in this thread.

The clueless hypocrisy alone is worth the reading.

We have members claiming to speak authoritatively on what anarchists do or do not believe or stand for, or whether they commit violent acts or not, referring to anarchists as some sort of homogeneous, coherent group, apparently oblivious to the fact that speaking on behalf of any anarchist is itself a gross violation of anarchic principles, and that anarchy is all about not forming groups or surrendering any form of sovereignty to others.

Anarchists do not speak with one voice, and the suggestion that they do is patently absurd.

Such a spectacle is embarrassing to witness.

Meanwhile, we have the similarly asinine display of self-described anarchists complaining about being unable to organize.

Hello? That's just downright hilarious. Do these people take themselves seriously? Apparently not, judging from their own words.

Anarchists complaining about being unable to organize? I can't be the only one who finds that a roll-on-the-floor yuckfest.

I can't make this stuff up -- it's comedic gold!

Puh-LEASE! If you're so damned opposed to statism, then quit whining about being unable to form your own silly little states and get on with your business.

MAJOR HINT: It's not forming an “anarchist government” or putting words in each others' mouths.

Finally, if you advocate dissolving formalized government, don't be surprised if people who advocate formalized government oppose you. That's kind of the whole point, isn't it?

If you describe yourself as an anarchist, yet act surprised when statists oppose you, then guess what? You're not an anarchist, just an idiot.

Just my honest perspective, speaking not for anarchists, statists or anyone but myself.

Hope that doesn't bother you -- or if it does, I hope it bothers you a lot.

Okay, maybe I'm just missing the point of this thread. You say the government is going after Anarchistic websites...I say, who the heck cares?!

Maybe if the Columbine Kids had kept contact via Emails and forums, and we could have caught them there, Englewood Colorado would have thirteen more taxpaying young adults walking the streets!

You can call the above situation a stretch if you like, but maybe this next situation will help clarify why we SHOULD watch the web.

We (the residents of my apartment complex) recently had one of our own arrested for soliciting a minor online for sex. I mean, this guy jumped on a bus and rode sixty miles to meet this girl. (From Citrus Heights to Vacaville, CA.) Also keep in mind...my grandson and this creep were PALS!! Fortunately, my grandson reports that this creep didn't do anything "freaky" with him, and I DO believe him, but this guy invited minors into his apartment all the time. It was watching this creep on the web that gave cops what they needed to snag this guy and jail him before any harm was done.

The Constitution is the Constitution, and may God continue to bless it...but my Grandson is my Grandson! Do what has to be done to protect HIM first!