You asked "yes" or "no" questions, but as I noted you

Posted on: May 14, 2024 at 09:23:13 CT

worded your questions poorly for the lame points you are trying to further.

You don't deserve this, but here you go:

Terrorists or criminals to launch an assault on a school, a college, a shopping mall or a hospital, should the police have to stand down, ignore the information and allow the crimes to take place?

If they know a crime is about to be committed (i.e. an actual crime, based on actual physical action and not just threats of doing it), then the police should intercede at the point that the crime is to occur (not just talking about it). You worded your question poorly and you got the response you deserved here.

Should criminals be allowed to plan their crimes either in public or private without anyone infringing upon their rights to do so?

Yes. It's not a crime (actual physical crime) to sit around and talk with people about what you want to do. It's the "doing" that is the crime.

The right to free speech permits planning, organizing, preparation, and discussions about their upcoming attacks. Is that correct?

Planning, organizing, preparation aren't necessarily speech. Speech is words and thoughts. That's not to say that I think the govt should arrest people before they actually commit crimes on the basis that they may be planning to commit crimes. It's just not speech. As to "discussions", that is speech and "yes" the freedom of speech extends to speech.

Is there any reason or excuse to ever, ever have intelligence either from military or law-enforcement to prevent criminal activity?

If you know that criminal activity is to actually occur, then go ahead and stop it at the point that it is occurring. That's different than punishing speech.