51–60 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's much of a problem at all. Many of the protesters and observers are not hiding their identities, so finding their phone number isn't a problem. Even with content, coordinating legal activities isn't a problem either.
I would never agree with you. protestors behaving legally or practicing civil disobedience can still have their lives ruined by people in power. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-supreme-court-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately not everyone in a group chat may be fully vetted, in which case they could be feds collecting "evidence". Some chats may have publicly circulating invite links. But any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis is doing the business of an authoritarian dictator. This is fully protected speech and assembly.
> any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis If you say something illegal in a chat with a cop in it, or say it in public, I don’t think there are Constitutional issues with the police using that as evidence. (If you didn’t say anything illegal, you have a valid defence.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis If you say something illegal in a chat with a cop in it, or say it in public, I don’t think there are Constitutional issues with the police using that as evidence. (If you didn’t say anything illegal, you have a valid defence.)
Sure. Can you give me an example of something that's illegal to say in a group chat that coordinates legal observers?
Actual examples? No. I don’t believe it happened.
Hypothetical examples? Co-ordinating gunning down ICE agents. If the chat stays on topic to “coordinat[ing] legal observers,” there shouldn’t be liability. The risk with open chats is they can go off topic if unmoderated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
conspiracy charges are a thing, and they'll only need a few examples of manifestly illegal interference. it will be quite easy for a prosecutor to charge lots of these people. it's been done for less, and even if the case is thrown out it can drag on for years and involve jail time before any conviction.
If they could arrest people for what they've been doing, they would have already arrested people. And they have arrested a few here and there for "assault" (things like daring to react when being shoved by an annoyed officer), but the thing that's really pissing DHS off is that the protesters and observers are not breaking the law.
prosecutors may take their time and file charges at their leisure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that there would be people on a "side" that think there was a conspiracy to commit a crime. What crime?
[flagged]
We also know that legal observation and making noise does not constitute interference.
So those may be their stated reasons, but they will not hold up in court.
A wise man told me, you know signal works because its banned in Russia. I also find it incredibly ironic that they have a problem with this, when the DoD is flagrantly using signal for classified communications.
The DOD is not using "flagrantly using Signal." The Secretary of Defense, whatever his preferred pronouns are, is breaking the law.
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mo...