California Revokes First Amendment.

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...
The bill makes it sound like 'doxing'.
It does, however, violate Article I, $2 of the Constitution of the State of California, a document that Newsom long ago discarded.
 
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...
You realize that the Republicans called it Stop Nick Shirley Act?
 
Yakuda said:
It seems to fit them perfectly
Click to expand...
It does.

A cancer cell that survives creates a tumor of useless tissue. All it knows how to do is consume resources and produce nothing useful. All it can do is grow and consume more resources.

Pieces of it break off and create more tumors elsewhere in the body.

Just like Democrats. Useless people. All they know how to do is consume resources and produce nothing useful. All they know how to do is try to grow and consume more resources.

Pieces of them break off and create more tumors elsewhere in the nation and in the world.

Nice comparison! :thumbsup:
 
Into the Night said:
It does.

A cancer cell that survives creates a tumor of useless tissue. All it knows how to do is consume resources and produce nothing useful. All it can do is grow and consume more resources.

Pieces of it break off and create more tumors elsewhere in the body.

Just like Democrats. Useless people. All they know how to do is consume resources and produce nothing useful. All they know how to do is try to grow and consume more resources.

Pieces of them break off and create more tumors elsewhere in the nation and in the world.

Nice comparison! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
well said
 
AProudLefty said:
Is that important?
Click to expand...

It's your lie. You keep lying that this is about "Doxxing" when it clearly says it's about stopping investigative reporting.

You support ending the 1st Amendment as a means of silencing all dissent against the party and stopping news stories, such as the ones Nick Shirley put out, that expose massive, institutional fraud by your party.

This is why the criminal gang you belong to is doing;

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LCIZBShQOk


 
AProudLefty said:
Um that's called doxxing. Wow.
Click to expand...
You are indeed a dumbfuck - and a liar.

Doxxing is when democrat mob boss Rob Bonta releases millions of names and addresses of gun owners.

Documenting on video open and in your face fraud in hospice and home care is journalism.

Because your party is behind the fraud - you support actual doxxing by criminal fraud Bonta and demand freedom of the press be ended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top