by Susan Duclos, All News Pipeline:
We have spoken about online censorship, social media silencing content they do not approve of, Google demonetizing websites like ANP that doesn’t follow the “authoritative, scientific consensus,” but the ‘RESTRICT act’ takes things to a whole new level.
Stefan Stanford recently described the RESTRICT act, otherwise known as Senate Bill 686, as an attempt at “controlling Internet content,” in order to ensure that the “never-ending stream of lies that we’ve been getting from the government and the mainstream media for the past several decades at least will be the ONLY information that we’re ‘allowed’ to get.”
Read Stefan’s entire piece at this link, because he has a great grasp on the damage this bill, if passed by the Senate and the House, then signed into law by Joe Biden, will do to all of our abilities to get the truth rather than the “official narrative.”
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The so-called purpose of this bill is to protect Americans from “TikTok” (Chinese), but nowhere in the Summary, nor the Text of the bill itself, is TikTok mentioned, which should be a huge red flag for anyone reading the bill.
In this piece we will delved into the text of the bill, the co-sponsors of the bill, where it stands at the moment, and more.
DANGEROUS TO AMERICANS LOOKING FOR, OR SPEAKING TRUTH
The RESTRICT act, aka S.686, will be embedded below for readers to see for themselves how dangerous this is for truth speakers and those looking for the truth rather than the official MSM/Biden regime narrative.
I am going to highlight some issues that jumped out at me while reading through the full text of the bill, and encourage readers to tells us in the comments below, what jumped out at them as dangerous.
The very first line states “To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes.”
Sounds so reasonable until you look to what they describe as foreign adversaries, and look back to some of the “fake news” from the past few years.
(8) FOREIGN ADVERSARY.—The term “foreign adversary”—
(A) means any foreign government or regime, determined by the Secretary, pursuant to sections 3 and 5, to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons; and
(B) includes, unless removed by the Secretary pursuant to section 6—
(i) the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region;
(ii) the Republic of Cuba;
(iii) the Islamic Republic of Iran;
(iv) the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
(v) the Russian Federation; and
(vi) the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros.
Now that would sound reasonable as well until you consider how much content was claimed to be “Russian disinformation,” such as the Hunter Biden laptop, where entire accounts were suspended by social media at the bequest of U.S. intelligence agencies, which we now know had nothing to do with Russia, was not disinformation, and has now been acknowledged by the MSM, long after the 2020 election was over.
Under the term “holding” they list stocks, securities, shares in a project associated with what they deem a “foreign adversary, but they also include the following for the term holding “any participation, right, or other equivalent, however designated and of any character.”
In other words anything a website says that doesn’t comport to what the U.S. government wants Americans to believe, can see that website fined, or imprisoned if the Feds label it content associated with a “foreign adversary,” even if there is no connection.
Mike Adams from Natural News also highlights how we can be penalized for reporting on corruption within the U.S. government.
As worded in the RESTRICT Act, “Interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; …” – meaning the so-called “reported result” is automatically official immediately, when CNN, ABC, NBC, CNBC, CBS, and the Associated Press declare it, is a narrative that, if questioned, results in 20 years in federal prison and total bankruptcy through heavy fines.
Powers given in this bill to the Secretary of Commerce, includes but is not limited to; “conduct investigations, hold hearings, administer oaths, examine witnesses, receive evidence, take depositions, and require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any documents relating to any transaction or holding under review or investigation, regardless of whether any report has been required or filed in connection therewith, including through another person or agency.”
Sounds like the powers of Congress, yes?
Under Section 10, ENFORCEMET, we see the following:
(b) Permitted Activities.—Officers and employees of agencies authorized to conduct investigations under subsection (a) may—
(1) inspect, search, detain, seize, or impose temporary denial orders with respect to items, in any form, or conveyances on which it is believed that there are items that have been, are being, or are about to be imported into the United States in violation of this Act or any other applicable Federal law;
(2) require, inspect, and obtain books, records, and any other information from any person subject to the provisions of this Act or other applicable Federal law;
(3) administer oaths or affirmations and, by subpoena, require any person to appear and testify or to appear and produce books, records, and other writings, or both; and
(4) obtain court orders and issue legal process to the extent authorized under chapters 119, 121, and 206 of title 18, United States Code, or any other applicable Federal law.
The name itself, RESTRICT, stands for “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act”
It is all about controlling information on the Internet by force. The force of the government. The force of threats of imprisonment and/or bankruptcy. The force of one-sided investigations without recourse against investigators.
Report what they do not like, and you can be targeted relentlessly for doing nothing more than investigating the truth.
As stated earlier, the entire bill is embedded at the bottom of this article for everyone to see how dangerous this will be to anyone seeking the truth and reporting on it.
During a time of systematic, ‘big tech’ censorship and widespread institutional corruption, truth-seeking media and alternative views are crucial, and EVERY little bit helps more than you could know!)
OTHER OPINIONS AND POINTS
First Post via MSN makes the following points:
The Restrict Act has sparked controversy among digital rights activists, who have raised concerns about the bill’s ambiguity regarding the specific products that would be banned and the broad powers it would grant the executive branch, while ignoring any scope of accountability.
One of the biggest concerns that digital rights activists have is that the Restrict Act could be used to criminalize the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and that US citizens’ online activities could be subject to increased surveillance.
In a breakdown of the proposed law, the EFF criticized the Restrict Act as sweeping legislation that would allow Congress to relinquish much of its responsibility for holding the executive branch accountable. The EFF argues that the bill’s purposefully confusing language is another example of its failure.
New RESTRICT Act Could Mean 20 Years In Prison For Using A VPN To Access Banned Apps
The new legislature proposes to give the U.S. Secretary authority to execute bans or exclusions on any “information and communications technology products and services holdings that pose undue or unacceptable risk,” with the unacceptable risks and exclusions to be determined and recommended by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, or the Director of National Intelligence. The bill allows any attempts to circumvent the exclusions or bans — using a VPN or proxy — to be punished with a fine of up to $1 million or up to 20 years in prison.
Reason Magazine: The RESTRICT Act Would Restrict a Lot More Than TikTok
Once again, politicians use popular fears to push for open-ended power.
• It then launches into a list of presumed horribles involving “information and communications technology products,” “critical infrastructure,” “digital economy,” “a Federal election,” or “national security.” It includes a vague authorization of action to counter “coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary…”
• Of course, this being the 21st century, the bill also grants the president new power to take actions regarding “undue or unacceptable risk” posed by information and communications technology (ICT).
• Under the bill, any technology targeted by the government should be connected to a “foreign adversary.” Those are defined in the text as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. But the bill also allows the Secretary of Commerce to designate new foreign adversaries “in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence.” That allows an enormous amount of room to go after technology developed in whole or part in countries that don’t play along with crackdowns on cryptocurrencies, encryption, or online speech. And the language may allow even broader reach for meddling by U.S. officials.
One of the most interesting aspects about this bill is the “bi-partisan” opposition to it.
Vice, undoubtedly left-leaning, headlines with “The ‘Insanely Broad’ RESTRICT Act Could Ban Much More Than Just TikTok.”
“The RESTRICT Act is a concerning distraction with insanely broad language that raises serious human and civil rights concerns,” Willmary Escoto, U.S. policy analyst for digital rights organization Access Now told Motherboard in an emailed statement.
More:
The bill’s language includes vague terms such as “desktop applications,” “mobile applications,” “gaming applications,” “payment applications,” and “web-based applications.” It also targets applicable software that has more than 1 million users in the U.S.
13 OF THE 25 SPONSORS ARE REPUBLICANS
Some of the most egregious actions that come from Congress, are “bi-partisan,” where some Republicans and Democrats, decide together what is best for the all Americans.
The scariest part of this bill having so many sponsors from both the left and the right, is that it makes it harder to stop the bill from passing both houses of congress because it makes it easier for them to garner enough votes because they have support from the ‘establishment’ congressional members of each party.
Read More @ AllNewsPipeline.com
