You seem to be confused again. I've been explaining that you were suggesting that the speech was obstruction. I've explained why it appeared to be so based on what you wrote. I don't need you to "clarify" that speech isn't obstruction; that's what I've been doing for you. Yet here you double down that you never claimed it in the first place. (Hey, talk about "classic bad-faith debate patterns".)
> My point is straightforward. If you call lawful arrests ‘kidnappings,’ the state will view you as adversarial, meaning subject to scrutiny or investigation
Right, I understand your view: federal obstruction is a crime ("Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is."), speech reasonably justifies suspicion for the crime of federal obstruction ("If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary."), so these officers were investigating this person for the crime of obstructing federal officers ("That’s what they’re looking for.") via his speech. That's not a "projection", it's a reasonable understanding of the words you wrote.
> A simple ‘What do you mean by that?’ would have been far more productive than dragging the discussion into refuting claims I never made. That’s a classic bad-faith debate pattern.
Well, surely it would have been productive for you to spout a bunch more bullshit but the reason I'm calling out your bullshit is to make you defend it. (/s) And, of course, instead of defending it, you simply state it again as though people misunderstand and then tell everyone that a plain-reading understanding of it is a personal projection. Yeah, tell me more about this "bad-faith" thing.