Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
What is scary about a law that clarifies the offence? Would you rather them be vague and allow for abuse of power?
The fact that the offense could be changed under a different law only means that it might have been a waste of time making this law, but the fact that it seems the penalty was increased means that you really couldn't say that.
|
No, what's scary is how far reaching it is. How, if it's explained correctly in the article, gives for broad power.
That's the point, at least how it's explained here. It's not clarified. Masked 'protesters' could get ten years.
I will admit I haven't gone through the boiler plate of the actual code, but that's not the point of the article. And I'm not a lawyer. If the actual law is very specific and understanding, I could recant. But not how it is explained here.
(And yeah I know to debate one should get it down to the brass tacks, but you must understand that most people don't even read the article (as I did), they read the headline and make up their mind. So I'm that much further ahead.)