Rant about the R.E.S.T.R.I.C.T. Act and then some

I could not decide which ATS Forum to bring attention to the "TikTok Ban" which is really this digital monster:
United States proposed Bill S.686

No offense to DigiMon a.i. who are nice.

But if that S.686 goes through, the synagogue of Satan will not just arrest you over a meme, they will do evil upon everyone you know under the guise of "law".

You know, "lawful evil."

This is not a video game. Posting online is as effective as poster-boards outdoors.
To my fellow United States citizens, "Nice 1st Amendment. Have you tried the 2nd, cowboys?"

My rant is that nobody in their right mind wants to go to war. War is horrible. Yes, Desert Storm was hot.
To think that even my post at this moment is a supposed potential threat to the Empire State they're Building.

The internet is already a warzone, so the enemy is inside your house. "S.686" indeed.
Guns versus high tech. Pfft. Yippie-ki-yay.

a reply to: BeNotAfraid

From your link:

Specifically, the Department of Commerce must identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and mitigate transactions involving ICT products and services (1) in which any foreign adversary (such as China) has any interest, and (2) that pose an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety of U.S. persons.

All of the above pertains to foreign adversaries, not domestic parties.

I'm not sure what threat you see to citizens exercising their free speech otherwise.

Are you suggesting this is some kind of slippery slope that will devolve into free speech violations?

Are you okay with foreign adversaries exploiting communications technology to spy on citizens? Do you think there's a better way to thwart bad actors without trampling free speech?

a reply to: BeNotAfraid


You are blowing this way out of proportion man.


Don't you have some 5g towers to catch fire or something?

a reply to: Boadicea

Better than PayPal, yeah. I think.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Man, The Shop just doesn't produce psychokineticists like they used to.

originally posted by: BeNotAfraid
a reply to: Boadicea

Better than PayPal, yeah. I think.

There it is again! That darn snark getting in the way of the point. But I'll jump thru your hoops do the work to make the point.

Since the legislation cited pertains solely to foreign adversaries, it does not apply to PayPal at all. So why bring up PayPal at all?

Given your previous reference to free speech rights, I can only deduce that you are oh-so-cryptically referring to PayPal proposed policy of fining and/or freezing accounts for things like hate speech, fake news, inciting violence, etc. Yes?

So are you conflating two very different issues out of ignorance? Or to gaslight? Or are you thinking in terms of a slippery slope that will allow domestic parties to be included with foreign adversaries? Or are you thinking something totally different?

Are you of the opinion that no regulation/legislation is appropriate to protect the people and nation from foreign bad actors? Do you think this particular legislation is too weak or too many weasel words to protect our rights and interests? How exactly do you foresee this bill impacting our free speech rights?

What would you change? What would you like done differently?

a reply to: BeNotAfraid

Finally, someone made a thread.

I wanted to post about this but the whole thing is burning my head.

The Trump indictment is a massive distraction from this totalitarian bill.

Guys, we're at a crossroads.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: BeNotAfraid


You are blowing this way out of proportion man.


Don't you have some 5g towers to catch fire or something?

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

"People-who-think-the-headline-is-the-gospel", amirite?

originally posted by: BeNotAfraid
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

"People-who-think-the-headline-is-the-gospel", amirite?

Precisely!

It's the real story we should be talking about.

posted on Apr, 24 2023 @ 11:28
link
Closed.

The issue of "Freedom of Speech" on ATS


Here, your "freedom of speech" is a privilege granted by the owner of this website. Any topic whatsoever can easily be discussed without insults, vulgarities, and taunting language. Our management style, organized structure, and efficient services are designed to created an environment in which members aspire to our higher standards, not scoff at them.


Terms And Conditions

a reply to: Boadicea Completely disagree with any suggestion that the Restrict Act is intended for "good," or that it's because "They're trying to 'protect' us." Yes, I do think that much like the "Patriot" Act, it will be used against the COMMON person.