Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1shooner | Hacker News Reader

I don't trust the administration to use the law in good faith, but this article is misquoting the DoJ statement. The articles omits the very relevant qualifier:

The article:

> Last week, the Justice Department instructed “citizens and noncitizens” that anyone furthering the “goals” of a foreign power in “any public activity” — including even “public demonstrations” — must formally notify the government to avoid arrest and prosecution.

The DoJ:

>“If a person acts as an agent of any foreign power to carry out any public activity, including (but not limited to) public demonstrations designed to further the propaganda or other goals of the foreign power, he or she must register with or notify the appropriate federal authorities”

View on HN

So the first amendment is suspended for individuals whose opinion/public activity - according to the administration - "furthers the goals of a foreign power".

This rules out protesting any kind of war, tariffs, or even things the administration likes, like demonstrating in support of Israel. Obviously the plan is not to apply the rule evenly, its just an authoritarian lever to silence dissenting speech the government does not like.

Would this not mean that if you oppose the Iran war because it's bad to kill civilians or you want gas prices to go down, that's OK - but if you oppose the Iran war because you're trying to help the Iranian government's foreign policy goals, that's acting as a foreign agent?

(Similarly, demonstrating in support of Israel because you think the US-Israel alliance is good for the US vs. good for Israel.)

I guess that’s a defense you could claim to the judge, at the trial, after being arrested.

The qualifier here is that the public demonstrations must further the propaganda of a foreign power? If so, that doesn’t seem to be much of an obstacle if the people making the arrest are the ones who decide whether or not a protest is furthering foreign propaganda.

That's still incorrect though.

FARA requires coordination with the foreign power. You are perfectly allowed to further its goals unless you have actually coordinated with them.

You have to actually be an agent of the foreign power. You can't be that just because you share their goals.

So I can read the DOJ sentence two ways, I first interpreted it as #1, but it sounds like you took it as #2?

1. "We mean people who at that time qualify as agents under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act, we said "acting as" because it indicates a temporary employment status rather than an innate human characteristic."

2. "We are weasel-wording to target all people with similar acts to how agents would act, but who would not qualify under the law we want you to think we'd be drawing authority from."

> We mean people who at that time qualify as agents under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act

According to who?

If that's according to the current us administration, then "qualifies as an agent" means "disagrees with the administration".

I empathize with your concern, but as bad as things are we shouldn't assume infinite malice from all federal entities in all circumstances. Not out of kindness or charity, but because it would be a maladaptive strategy for handling problems.

If they try charging Joe-Shmoe under FARA, there's still some chance of loss in federal courts.

No need to assume infinite malice, but given the track record, it would be naïve to assume anything other than a default of malice unless proven otherwise

The evidence in front of us (the malicious words of the person in question) strongly favors malice anyways.

Yes, I feel that it's weasel-wording trying to deemphasize the agent aspects to FUD people into not going to demonstrations.

What exactly is the distinction you see there?

My guess is that they're drawing a distinction between reporting that says:

1. People in general who have opinions that might happen to align with a foreign power's stance.

2. People who are literally "agents" of a foreign power as defined under laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 [0], which often involves being directed/hired/paid.

That'd be a significantly different legal standard. (The constitutionality of FARA-type laws being a separate question.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...

There's not any question about it: the president already said in no uncertain terms (and probably all caps) that anybody opposing datacenters is a foreign agent working against the usa.

Only a truly naïve person would not have seen this next logical step (prosecutory threats) coming when the preceding step received virtually no opposition.

Reminds me of the Christ clowns who stand outside abortion clinics. The money is all traced back to America.

TBH we should support any channel by which America is forced to share money with the rest of the world. Imagine if they had a billion abortion protestors - maybe they couldn't afford data centers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com