Ok, sure[1]. I don't know why I am, but I'm surprised people are going to bat for this. Where is your line, exactly? Is it legality? Is it further along?
[1] https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2026/01/california...
>> The level of alarm being applied here is grossly disproportionate to the act itself and is merely being used as a pretext for broader intervention.
> I don't know why I am, but I'm surprised people are going to bat for this. Where is your line, exactly? Is it legality? Is it further along?
If something is illegal, that’s a clear boundary and the appropriate place for enforcement. If it’s legal, the burden is on anyone arguing for restriction to explain why speech controls are justified despite that -- what concrete harm exists, why existing law is insufficient, and why the remedy won’t create more error or suppression than it prevents.
Absent that showing, "this feels bad" or "this is alarming" isn’t a standard.