Censored!

[Pat Hartman]

My view is that our super efficient, money and resource rich government, won't have anything like the time or inclination to actually police this act except in really extreme cases.

What is the point of enacting a law that you have no intention to enforce? Is it there merely as a trap so you can ensnare someone you don't like and never prosecute anyone you do like? Sounds like it. We have lots of laws like that on the books.

 

[Steve R.]

VP Vance's Munich speech praised as 'Churchillian' moment as CBS host faces criticism for response

Jonathan Turley praised VP Vance for his Munich Security Conference address, criticizing European free speech laws, criticizes response from CBS anchor Margaret Brennan.

www.foxnews.com

Is it there merely as a trap so you can ensnare someone you don't like and never prosecute anyone you do like?

Just happens that there is an example. The 1799 Logan Act was used as an attempt by Democrats to persecute Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Moreover, John Kerry (a private citizen at the time) surreptitiously negotiated with Iran (in 2017?), which would be a violation of the Logan Act. Yet he was never prosecuted.

Biden raised ‘Logan Act’ in Oval Office discussion about Flynn, Peter Strzok notes show - Washington Examiner

Former Vice President Joe Biden mentioned the "Logan Act" during an early January 2017 Oval Office discussion about the investigation into retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, newly released notes suggest.It's not fully clear what Biden said about the 1799 law, but Flynn's legal team said "it...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

It will come down to protected classes versus non-protected classes that’s where enforcement and resources will ultimately be focused. I won’t provide examples here, but readers will get the gist.

 

[Isaac]

Currently unknown, but could be things like excluding any talk about religion, Islam etc. Or genders. Basically, stopping all the things we like talking about!

That's kinda what I was thinking.
Thanks

 

[Pat Hartman]

If the Logan Act doesn't have a statute of limitations, the DOJ can prosecute Kerry now as well as any Biden supporter who violated the act.

 

[Isaac]

It will come down to protected classes versus non-protected classes that’s where enforcement and resources will ultimately be focused. I won’t provide examples here, but readers will get the gist.

I remember one thing I came away from my Con Law class with the strong impression that the creation of protected classes was supposed to be very limited, it's a VERY big deal constitutionally and precedent-wise, and the 3-5 we already have should be enough. In modern times, people want to make everything and its brother a protected class - except they never lean conservative, always liberal, and they are definitely a slippery slope.

 

[Isaac]

What is the point of enacting a law that you have no intention to enforce? Is it there merely as a trap so you can ensnare someone you don't like and never prosecute anyone you do like? Sounds like it. We have lots of laws like that on the books.

Sounds like some of the stuff they used on J6 people. Not all, but some. Not finding any real crimes, they dug up charges based on stuff that had virtually never been used in that context. Pretty desperate if you ask me

 

[Pat Hartman]

Just say "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, what is it?" That will shut them up and avoid any further action on their part. Unless they really can read minds!

"Thou shall not bear false witness"

Remember what your mommy always told you - the lie doubles your punishment. Many people simply won't lie in this situation. I happen to agree though, in the same situation, I would lie. The law is unjust and I would do nothing to give it any credence.

 

[Isaac]

We are getting to the point where if you believe in traditional values, you may well find yourself in prison, just for teaching those values to your kids at home or daring to suggest the schools teach them - or at least avoid aggressively teaching the opposite. I believe countries like Sweden are already there, Scotland too maybe.

 

[Steve R.]

Things will change here shortly, due to the impending UK Only Safety Act. I personally become liable for everything you say, with huge potential fines. Consequently, topics for discussion will be severely curtailed, and moderation likely to be heavy.

First 6 minutes are commercials!

Download - Liz Truss: Fighting for Freedom in a Censored UK | Podbean

www.podbean.com

 

[Mike Krailo]

"Thou shall not bear false witness"

Remember what your mommy always told you - the lie doubles your punishment. Many people simply won't lie in this situation. I happen to agree though, in the same situation, I would lie. The law is unjust and I would do nothing to give it any credence.

Ah, but that's not how that works Pat. Witnessing is something that is visible in the world, not in your head.

It's very clear to me, that they are really objecting to standing near the clinic and that is the only trigger needed for them to haul you off to jail. It doesn't matter what you think, they will assign that idea for you. Everything else is just a way to justify their actions. Remaining silent is also an important right we have in America that should be an even better option, but elsewhere, they might force you to speak or be hauled off where they will force you do their bidding anyway. It's called a tyranny. You must answer my questions or be jailed. So to thwart all of the nonsense, the easiest way to circumvent all of that red tape is to simply maliciously comply with the "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10" and be done with it. They got nothing after that response.

 

[Jon]

There is a good chance that we will have to ban all Direct Messages in the very near future. The Online Safety Act says that you need to ensure nothing nefarious goes on in Direct Messages too, and the only way to do that is to make them all viewable to moderators, which is not currently possible with the Xenforo software. Also, it would mean going through thousands of previous Direct Messages between members, and also an invasion of everyones privacy.

It looks like the only solution will be to turn that feature off for everybody, unfortunately.

 

[Isaac]

Anything short of shutting down all conversation is a win, given the adversity you're facing!

 

[AngelSpeaks]

There is a good chance that we will have to ban all Direct Messages in the very near future. The Online Safety Act says that you need to ensure nothing nefarious goes on in Direct Messages too, and the only way to do that is to make them all viewable to moderators, which is not currently possible with the Xenforo software. Also, it would mean going through thousands of previous Direct Messages between members, and also an invasion of everyones privacy.

It looks like the only solution will be to turn that feature off for everybody, unfortunately.

Jon, do what you have to do.

 

[Mike Krailo]

There is a good chance that we will have to ban all Direct Messages in the very near future. The Online Safety Act says that you need to ensure nothing nefarious goes on in Direct Messages too, and the only way to do that is to make them all viewable to moderators, which is not currently possible with the Xenforo software. Also, it would mean going through thousands of previous Direct Messages between members, and also an invasion of everyones privacy.

It looks like the only solution will be to turn that feature off for everybody, unfortunately.

This is the most awful news yet. This really makes no sense at all for country to shut down communications of it's citizens. There is no way this ends well.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Rather than submit, work out a deal to sell the website to a US company and become a passive investor. You are never going to feel safe. You are going to be forced to curtail the freedoms of others and you say you care about that.

What does the site software provider have to say about the new rules? Will they provide actual tools to help? Maybe they can find a way to move the hosting off shore to shelter you.

 

[Isaac]

The act applies to services even if the companies providing them are outside the UK

 

[Isaac]

I feel bad for everyone having to comply with this new law, what a sad day for freedom and mostly for small businesses. Severe over-regulation if I ever saw it. I've seen many regulations in the USA that only apply to, (for example), "companies with >5000 employees", or "companies doing over $10MM of revenue a year", etc. Some similar threshhold should have been applied in this law, but the act seems to brag about how they will enforce it against smaller operators, too.

But if misery loves company don't feel too bad, we are very close behind you in all of these draconian regulations and outlooks on life.
If a Republican doesn't win in 2028, the pendelum will just bounce back again to an extreme Nanny state like Democrats like, killing dissent and free speech

God forbid anyone be offended by my opinion, or more shockingly, the truth

 

[Jon]

I have a sense that this new censorship law has become some kind of pissing contest. "We have the best laws for protecting its citizens, better than all the other countries!"

 

[Isaac]

I have a sense that this new censorship law has become some kind of pissing contest. "We have the best laws for protecting its citizens, better than all the other countries!"

Yep.

Protecting, of course, only those who 'fit' the current approved narrative. Anyone who disagrees is a hateful, *phobe of some kind