On Sunday, November 10, 2019, 06:40:15 PM PST, Razer <[email protected]> wrote: On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell <[email protected]> wrote: >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your >imagination may differ. > Jim Bell
>DUDE! We're talking about a federally taxed and regulated (FCC FTC et al) >CORPORATION, NOT an individual! If they get a GAG ORDER or whatever it might >be called legally, they WILL EXECUTE IT, including any searches and destroys >they're capable of if demanded. You are merely speculating about a 'gag order'. Why invent that imaginary factor? Nobody has received a gag order, or at least they're not talking!!! (Ha ha ha ha ha....) And don't forget Steven Schear's "Warrant Canary": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary Regularly publish a "non-warrant" announcement, which you stop publishing if a warrant arrives. >There was also a bunch of idiots who thought that online proxy service that >acted on a court order a few years ago should have 'done a riseup' and taken a >fireaxe to their server, but as I said at the top, they're a bunch of idiots. Bad events do happen, sometimes. >Also note that someday soon the espionage act will be modded to make it a >crime to pass on information that you weren't even aware was classified, which >is EXACTLY the reason why Julian Asssange claims to have had the inspiration >for Wikileaks. Which is one good reason that my Assassination Politics idea needs to be implemented. Jim Bell
