101–110 of 1001 posts
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?
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.
i suppose what he means is that the phones of protestors which have signal chat will be investigated. Assuming they dont have disappearing messages activated, and assuming any protestors willingly unlock their phones.
Unlocking isn't necessary, We've already seen that Apple and Google will turn data over on government requests. https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-complies-percent-us-go...
I’d be curious to know what they plan to charge people with.
I’d be curious to know what they plan to charge people with.
I’d be curious to know what they plan to charge people with.
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
Federal felony
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is typically not included in protected speech. Whether you think that's happening here will depend mostly on what side you take, I suspect.
Interesting that there would be people on a "side" that think there was a conspiracy to commit a crime. What crime?
Why? That's unequivocally constitutionally protected speech. Why is our tax money being wasted on this?
They're "investigating", presumably with data gleaned from arrests and CIs; you have a right to speech, and a right not to be prosecuted for speech, but a much, much narrower right not to be "investigated", collapsing to ~epsilon when the investigation involves data the FBI already has.