Unfortunately, this country slowly but surely is moving toward the police state. Anytime when someone use the words “national security “ point out yet another step to that direction. Protecting fellow citizens from themselves- for example how our airports and hospitals are operating- is a good examples how our rights and freedom suppress.
Like the Patriot Act before, the broad-brush approach opens doors to abuse. If we want to ban TikTok and Bite-dance, write and enact legislation to do so.
If the bill is meant to enact laws that, in order for the penalties named to be enacted, the crimes listed must be committed; then isnt the supposed broadness of the activities covered not an issue?
If normal people would never commit the crimes this clearly targets, then this bill and the law it proposes would never reach those normal people.
In order to get that sort of treatment, you need to be involved in one of the listed crimes.
There should be no presumed communicative path for these measures to hit normal people and the bill seems to close the context, as Sen Warner said, on the bounds of "someone must be engaged in ‘sabotage or subversion’ of American communications technology products and services, creating ‘catastrophic effects’ on U.S. critical infrastructure, or ‘interfering in, or altering the result’ of a federal election"
Is there something else Im missing? If not, this seems like much ado about nothing.
Unfortunately, this country slowly but surely is moving toward the police state. Anytime when someone use the words “national security “ point out yet another step to that direction. Protecting fellow citizens from themselves- for example how our airports and hospitals are operating- is a good examples how our rights and freedom suppress.
Like the Patriot Act before, the broad-brush approach opens doors to abuse. If we want to ban TikTok and Bite-dance, write and enact legislation to do so.
If the bill is meant to enact laws that, in order for the penalties named to be enacted, the crimes listed must be committed; then isnt the supposed broadness of the activities covered not an issue?
If normal people would never commit the crimes this clearly targets, then this bill and the law it proposes would never reach those normal people.
In order to get that sort of treatment, you need to be involved in one of the listed crimes.
There should be no presumed communicative path for these measures to hit normal people and the bill seems to close the context, as Sen Warner said, on the bounds of "someone must be engaged in ‘sabotage or subversion’ of American communications technology products and services, creating ‘catastrophic effects’ on U.S. critical infrastructure, or ‘interfering in, or altering the result’ of a federal election"
Is there something else Im missing? If not, this seems like much ado about nothing.
Whatever is said by whoever introduced the bill is meaningless, the bill itself will be what matters.
It might as well be called the ‘Big guns against free-speech” bill