Law The RESTRICT act aims to tackle TikTok. But it’s overly-broad and has major privacy and free speech implications. - It gives the government more power over ALL forms of communication.

The RESTRICT act aims to tackle TikTok. But it’s overly-broad and has major privacy and free speech implications.
RelcaimTheNet (archive.ph)
By Didi Rankovic
2023-03-27 18:07:40GMT


Senator Mark Warner's Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (“RESTRICT”) Act is currently in Senate procedure, as is widely thought to be targeting China's TikTok in particular.

However, those who bothered to read the text of the proposed act – which will next be considered by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, are warning that it is not merely about TikTok, but aims to grant wide powers over all forms of domestic and foreign communications to the government – such as enforcing “any” mitigating measure to deal with risks to national security.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. (archive.org)

And, observers critical of these legislative activities note, there would be no due process in taking these measures, and not much in terms of safeguards.


The Libertarian Party's Mises Caucus notes that the draft text states that the act's goal is to authorize the US secretary of commerce to review and prohibit “certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes.”


Observers note that if somebody or something is designated as a threat to national security, under the proposed legislation, the government would be given full access to these entities.

The text of the act singles out several usual suspects as foreign adversaries, such as Russia, China, Iran, etc., but, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of commerce are free to add new “foreign adversaries” to the list, while not under obligation to let Congress know about it.

They would also be given 15 days before notifying the president.

Critics make a point of the fact that US citizens marked as national security threat can also be considered and treated using the provisions of this proposal as “foreign individuals.”

And when this designation is in place, then the threat of “any action deemed necessary” to mitigate it kicks in, which could result in people being ordered to pay a million dollar fine, spend 20 years in prison, or lose all assets (and these forms of punishment would be meted out without due process).

No limits are put on the funding and hiring to enforce the act, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would not apply.

All that just to “ban” TikTok?

Either way, The White House is in favor of passing RESTRICT Act. (archive.ph)

 

[Curzon Dax-sama]

Shit at this rate what's the value in an American citizenship?

A lot. The reason for that is the very, very distinct nature of the multiple tiers of the government. The feds in DC can in their smugness and desire for totalitarian power and ability to jail people over wrongthink pass laws that a state like Florida or Texas simply will not enforce and if a state government feels like it: even threaten to arrest the fed-glowie officers sent down by DC to enforce their bullshit laws. State governments still tend to be very, very powerful safeguards against overreach by the usual faggots, because the totalitarian commie brainlets underestimate what state governments actually do.

 

[Instant_Pot_User]

Nothing really.

Its value is the passport, having a US passport gets you into a fuckload of countries with little problem.

 

[AnOminous]

A lot. The reason for that is the very, very distinct nature of the multiple tiers of the government. The feds in DC can in their smugness and desire for totalitarian power and ability to jail people over wrongthink pass laws that a state like Florida or Texas simply will not enforce and if a state government feels like it: even threaten to arrest the fed-glowie officers sent down by DC to enforce their bullshit laws. State governments still tend to be very, very powerful safeguards against overreach by the usual faggots, because the totalitarian commie brainlets underestimate what state governments actually do.

That would actually be insurrection because of the Supremacy Clause. That doesn't mean states haven't done it, or that it wouldn't be disastrous to try to enforce such a law in the face of intransigence. The feds often do back off when states get ornery.

What they can legally do is sue the U.S. directly in the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction (New York likes to do this). Or just start in a District Court against the agency in question, and such a suit will generally get resolved very rapidly. In this case, if this law is actually passed in its current form, considering SCOTUS's First Amendment jurisdiction as it stands, they would get a very rapid smackdown if SCOTUS heard it under its original jurisdiction.

However, they could also sue in a normal District Court against whatever agency enforces the provision, or all of them, apparently it's this entire batch of agencies:

(14) RELEVANT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY HEADS.—The term “relevant executive department and agency heads” means—

(A) the Secretary of Treasury;

(B) the Secretary of State;

(C) the Secretary of Defense;

(D) the Attorney General;

(E) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(F) the United States Trade Representative;

(G) the Director of National Intelligence;

(H) the Administrator of General Services;

(I) the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; and

(J) the heads of other executive departments and agencies, as appropriate.

It's likely if they did this, they'd get an injunction on at least some of the more clearly constitutionally noxious provisions while the case wends its way up through the courts. So it is unlikely that in its current form it would be fully enforced.

tl;dr SCOTUS would have original but not exclusive jurisdiction over such a case.

 

[Tiny Chinaman]

They have to fragment the Internet before the chinks break encryption

 

[Curzon Dax-sama]

That would actually be insurrection because of the Supremacy Clause. That doesn't mean states haven't done it, or that it wouldn't be disastrous to try to enforce such a law in the face of intransigence. The feds often do back off when states get ornery.

That's the reason why I think the citizenship of the US is worth infinitely more than the one of Germany or any other EU-country. See, on paper Germany is set up in a similiar manner as the US, however the states NEVER EVER would actually obstruct federal law and it hasn't anything to do with the fact that federal law does overrule state law. It's just that they won't for political reasons - the control of the CDUSPDFDPLINKEGrüne-uniparty over the state level is complete and the various state-level players use the state governments as a springboard to become members of the federal government to such an extent that indeed the states are nothing more than glorified fed-enforcers. Also, no actual state militias that can be used in case Berlin goes bonkers... Hell, the various state police forces are so in line politically speaking they'd probably either stay home or simply defect to the BKA.

Sometimes state governments do shoot down fed-wonkiness before it can become law. The Bundesrat which is comparable to the pre-1913 US-Senate can be utilized to obstruct stupid ideas the feds cook up in Berlin, but the frequency at which that's been done has declined to roughly zero the past years.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Leave it to 4chan to make this into an anime

 

[Shekelslovakia]

A lot. The reason for that is the very, very distinct nature of the multiple tiers of the government. The feds in DC can in their smugness and desire for totalitarian power and ability to jail people over wrongthink pass laws that a state like Florida or Texas simply will not enforce and if a state government feels like it: even threaten to arrest the fed-glowie officers sent down by DC to enforce their bullshit laws. State governments still tend to be very, very powerful safeguards against overreach by the usual faggots, because the totalitarian commie brainlets underestimate what state governments actually do.

The US government is now kind of like the court system of Isle delfino from Super Mario Sunshine. Just one big kangaroo court without even looking at any evidence.

Also...
The Piantas are pretty much the Jews right down to their rainbow colors and speech. /ISPOILER]

 

[1996 Toyota Camry]

Its value is the passport, having a US passport gets you into a fuckload of countries with little problem.

The US passport is pretty good however Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom are all either equal to or better than the US passport

 

[Prince Vegeta]

I'm sure the European Union are watching this bill with envy, their retarded ePrivacy derogation thoroughly mogged by this piece of faggotry.

 

[make_it_so]

There's no need to throw a panicky tantrum over legislation that isn't even passed and probably will not pass in its current form anyway, even if Rand Paul doesn't outright filibuster it. Fun fact, he'd be on the same side as AOC and Ilhan Omar.

Actually having principles winds up creating strange bedfellows.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Now I unironically believe all lawmakers and politicians should be legally required to wear a live-streamed bodycam 24/7.

"But muh safety!"
That's the point, cunt. Maybe you'll think twice about encroaching on the freedom of your constituents when you're being watched by those same people every second of everyday.

I agree, on the condition that they are also all turned into eunuchs so they can't enjoy their visits to Epstein Island.

Interesting freedom you have there America, just keep telling yourself "yuroop is worse!"

Well, yeah of course it is. But you make a fair point, the fact that this garbage is even being proposed (and allegedly VPN users risking 20 years in jail, might be bullshit but Clown World suggests otherwise) is a strong indicator of how far this country's drifted away from its core values.

If this shit actually passes I will continue to act as if I do have freedom, consequences be damned.

 

[mindlessobserver]

So, as a native Virginian, I, potentially hypothetically, may need a simple hand out that I can pass to people in the super market and other such places, explaining to Mark Warner's voters what he's just proposed to the nation on behalf of us his constituents. It needs to be simple but catchy, and preferably something I can I print on a standard printer on standard printer paper to be cut into 4 separate sheets to keep costs down. I have some ideas, but I figure there are way more talented people around here then me.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Can you imagine when some lolcow
Starts frothing at the mouth talking about reporting you to the cyber police. They're being fucking serious
I don't know how this will not kill the internet. How is it even supposed to function? If everybody has to be looking over their shoulder? Worrying about whether or not some glow nigger swine is going to kick in their door and arrest them for spicy memes ?

If I live in a country where the glowies are going to arrest me over some stupid joke I posted on the internet, it's already too late. If anything it'll probably encourage people to go all out because if you're gonna black bag everybody who mocks Burger Brezhnev you might as well make the best of it.

A lot. The reason for that is the very, very distinct nature of the multiple tiers of the government. The feds in DC can in their smugness and desire for totalitarian power and ability to jail people over wrongthink pass laws that a state like Florida or Texas simply will not enforce and if a state government feels like it: even threaten to arrest the fed-glowie officers sent down by DC to enforce their bullshit laws. State governments still tend to be very, very powerful safeguards against overreach by the usual faggots, because the totalitarian commie brainlets underestimate what state governments actually do.

If the states don't get to refuse bullshit, what's the point of having states in the first place? Might as well be a unitary system.

A federal system was a reasonable attempt to mitigate the issues caused by the Articles of Confederation, but unfortunately the federal part thinks it's a fucking king and is acting the way the colonists accused George III of being. The irony is outstanding.

 

[mindlessobserver]

If the states don't get to refuse bullshit, what's the point of having states in the first place? Might as well be a unitary system.

They've not really been put up against the wall yet. The last time the States got into a tard fight with the Feds it was over segregation and it was a losing fight from the start. The FBI got to paint themselves as moral crusaders for truth, justice and the American way because of that, and State institutions were literally made to comply through the use of Federal Soldiers in the form of armed 101st Airborne Division troopers at central high school.

This was a body blow. No state government has dared rear its head since and everyone in them views it merely as a stepping stone to federal government, where the REAL power is.

A federal system was a reasonable attempt to mitigate the issues caused by the Articles of Confederation, but unfortunately the federal part thinks it's a fucking king and is acting the way the colonists accused George III of being. The irony is outstanding.

Worse then that really. King George, at a fundamental level believed he was answerable to God, if not the people who he ostensibly ruled. The Federal Government answers to nobody. Not the people, and certainly not God. They answer only to themselves.

 

[AnOminous]

Actually having principles winds up creating strange bedfellows.

Rand Paul is one of the few Republican Senators (well frankly any Senators at all) with any principle. Also he's one of the few Senators with the balls to do an actual stand-up marathon filibuster like you're supposed to, instead of the chickenshit bullshit that is more usual these days, where a Senator just says he's filibustering, and instead of actually having to do it, they either drop whatever he's opposing or do the cloture vote.

This was a body blow. No state government has dared rear its head since and everyone in them views it merely as a stepping stone to federal government, where the REAL power is.

That actually was insurrection, though. If the feds don't enforce a unanimous Supreme Court decision, they basically admit they're impotent. It's entirely something else to try to enforce something vastly unpopular (like Prohibition). Also the states are currently effectively passively resisting federal drug policy by simply refusing to go along with it any more.

So if the feds want to go after marijuana they more or less have to do it themselves.

Similarly, California was refusing to assist federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration policy, while Arizona was going in the opposite direction and enforcing it contrarily to federal policy.

Montana and Arizona both refused to enforce parts of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which essentially ordered the states to enforce its provisions, then won the subsequent court case (Printz v. United States).

Basically the states aren't obligated to enforce federal law but you can't get away with being Orval Faubus and sending out the state national guard to stop the feds from enforcing it.

That's the reason why I think the citizenship of the US is worth infinitely more than the one of Germany or any other EU-country.

Even if your country decides something, in any of those countries, it can be overruled by some miserable fat Belgian bastard who was never even elected by the people.

 

[NyQuilninja]

Nothing really.

They do this kind of shit all the time and it's usually ultimately shot down by the courts or repealed for being unpopular or "sunsetted" like a lot of the worst stuff in USA PATRIOT. Hell, our second President John Adams basically tried to pass a law against the First Amendment (the Alien and Sedition Act). It makes anything in the last century other than PATRIOT look respectful of free speech.

It was so unpopular he was chucked out of office the next election and his entire political party collapsed.

While it is true that politicians have always been overreaching. what is different now. You have an apathetic public that doesn't care or understand. Global Corporations funding and lobbying this nonsense. And a large bloated government full of grifters

 

[NyQuilninja]

If I live in a country where the glowies are going to arrest me over some stupid joke I posted on the internet, it's already too late. If anything it'll probably encourage people to go all out because if you're gonna black bag everybody who mocks Burger Brezhnev you might as well make the best of it.

If the states don't get to refuse bullshit, what's the point of having states in the first place? Might as well be a unitary system.

A federal system was a reasonable attempt to mitigate the issues caused by the Articles of Confederation, but unfortunately the federal part thinks it's a fucking king and is acting the way the colonists accused George III of being. The irony is outstanding.

Sure some might say fuck it and burn everything down. Most will keep making excuses for why they have no freedoms and rights.

 

[Starved Artist]

Why is it that our politicans love destroying the privacy of their constituents, while defending their own?

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

It’s a very bad bill.

 

[Pissmaster]

It’s a very bad bill.

Your mom is a very bad bill