California Revokes First Amendment.

AProudLefty said:
You think doxxing should be allowed? Well talk to Damocles.
Click to expand...
Who did Nick Shirley doxx? Did Nick Shirley publish anyone's name or address beyond possibly getting someone to tell him their name on camera? Did Nick Shirley use any information that wasn't publicly available, like business and tax records, to find these people? So how did he doxx them?

The bills advocates say it stops someone like Shirley from "doxxing or threatening" someone. Cough up one instance where Shirley did either. Did the person in that instance sue Shirley under previously existing law over it? After all, doxxing and communicating threats were crimes long before this bill passed. One case.

On the other hand, Gavin Newscum's Chief of Staff, was fine saying, "Did you guys hear that Nick Shirley has a small penis allegedly?" He now has not one but several formal complaints against him for slandering persons publicly.

The way this bill helps fraudsters is they can now complain to the state and the state can take criminal action against someone, even if the case is weak or nonexistent. That means the target now has to spend their own money fighting the state while their prosecution is funded, in part, by their own taxes. The process becomes the punishment.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Who did Nick Shirley doxx? Did Nick Shirley publish anyone's name or address beyond possibly getting someone to tell him their name on camera? Did Nick Shirley use any information that wasn't publicly available, like business and tax records, to find these people? So how did he doxx them?

The bills advocates say it stops someone like Shirley from "doxxing or threatening" someone. Cough up one instance where Shirley did either. Did the person in that instance sue Shirley under previously existing law over it? After all, doxxing and communicating threats were crimes long before this bill passed. One case.

On the other hand, Gavin Newscum's Chief of Staff, was fine saying, "Did you guys hear that Nick Shirley has a small penis allegedly?" He now has not one but several formal complaints against him for slandering persons publicly.

The way this bill helps fraudsters is they can now complain to the state and the state can take criminal action against someone, even if the case is weak or nonexistent. That means the target now has to spend their own money fighting the state while their prosecution is funded, in part, by their own taxes. The process becomes the punishment.
Click to expand...
Thank you for actually debunking the OP's lie.
 
AProudLefty said:
Thank you for actually debunking the OP's lie.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't characterize it as a "lie," but rather as poorly worded.

Since AB 2624 contains both civil and criminal provisions and penalties, it is entirely possible for a fraudster to go to the state and have the state make the prosecution. This would be the normal path here I suspect.

That means the state comes after the person, even if the allegations are as flimsy as toilet paper. The process becomes the punishment.

This is really no different than what the Left did in Canada with their Human Rights Commissions. These quasi-judicial bodies full of woke Leftists, would go after anyone they disagreed with politically or socially using the weight of government to shut down free speech. Even if the person targeted won, they lost because the process could cost them thousands, even tens of thousands in legal fees. This California bill does the same.

It shields criminals defrauding the government from discovery. The government is not about to go after them.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I wouldn't characterize it as a "lie," but rather as poorly worded.

Since AB 2624 contains both civil and criminal provisions and penalties, it is entirely possible for a fraudster to go to the state and have the state make the prosecution. This would be the normal path here I suspect.

That means the state comes after the person, even if the allegations are as flimsy as toilet paper. The process becomes the punishment.

This is really no different than what the Left did in Canada with their Human Rights Commissions. These quasi-judicial bodies full of woke Leftists, would go after anyone they disagreed with politically or socially using the weight of government to shut down free speech. Even if the person targeted won, they lost because the process could cost them thousands, even tens of thousands in legal fees. This California bill does the same.

It shields criminals defrauding the government from discovery. The government is not about to go after them.
Click to expand...
You realize it works both ways, right?
 
AProudLefty said:
You realize it works both ways, right?
Click to expand...
Really? How can someone under this bill sue the state for anything? How can someone who complains to the state who then begins a criminal investigation be held libel? The bill was crafted to allow the fraudsters to get the state to do their dirty work against those who might expose them, while shielding them from any legal reprisals.

This Democrat only bill was designed to perpetuate fraud because it benefits the Democrats to do so.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Really? How can someone under this bill sue the state for anything? How can someone who complains to the state who then begins a criminal investigation be held libel? The bill was crafted to allow the fraudsters to get the state to do their dirty work against those who might expose them, while shielding them from any legal reprisals.

This Democrat only bill was designed to perpetuate fraud because it benefits the Democrats to do so.
Click to expand...
Let's ask Grok if you're correct.

No. The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” is a Republican nickname for California Assembly Bill 2624 (AB 2624), which expands the state’s existing Safe at Home program. It was not designed to perpetuate fraud.
 
AProudLefty said:
Let's ask Grok if you're correct.

No. The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” is a Republican nickname for California Assembly Bill 2624 (AB 2624), which expands the state’s existing Safe at Home program. It was not designed to perpetuate fraud.
Click to expand...
Let's not. An amateur AI is not worth responding to. It perpetuates fraud, claims by its enactors notwithstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top