3 ms·

I'm going by this: > ... criminally charge people and seize their assets if they’re believed to be ... participating in a demonstration that ends up becoming v

I'm going by this: > ... criminally charge people and seize their assets if they’re believed to be ... participating in a demonstration that ends up becoming violent. By that wording you don't actually need to be associated with the group that is planning the violence. It may be that the intent is as you describe, but the wording as given here allows the police simply to sweep up anyone attending a protest that turns out to be violent.

gozur88 10y ago
They link to the text of the bill in the article, and that "participating in a demonstration that ends up becoming violent" isn't supported by that text. The law is addressing participation in a conspiracy.
- CarolineW 10y ago
  So you are not saying that what the article says is reasonable. You are saying that the article does not accurately report the change in the law. Yes? This may seem a petty point to you, but if it's the case then I wish you (and others - you are by no means the only one to do this) would say what you actually mean, and not something that is not what you mean. Specifically, you said: > This all seems reasonable to me. That sounds to me like you are agreeing that what the article says is happening is reasonable, whereas now it seems that you are saying that the law being passed is reasonable, and that the article is mis-reporting it. Yes?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented. You're reading too much into what I said. The law is reasonable. The article is sensationalized, though not as much as the HN title.
    - CarolineW 10y ago
      > Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented. OK, now everything you've written makes sense - thank you. > You're reading too much into what I said. Sorry, but I just read what you wrote and took what I thought was the most obvious interpretation. As I explained earlier, you said: > This all seems reasonable to me. When that's a reply to a link to an article, it seems reasonable to me that the "this" should be referring to the article. The downvotes make it clear that my expectations were wrong. Thank you for your clarification.

gozur88 10y ago

They link to the text of the bill in the article, and that "participating in a demonstration that ends up becoming violent" isn't supported by that text. The law is addressing participation in a conspiracy.

CarolineW 10y ago
So you are not saying that what the article says is reasonable. You are saying that the article does not accurately report the change in the law. Yes? This may seem a petty point to you, but if it's the case then I wish you (and others - you are by no means the only one to do this) would say what you actually mean, and not something that is not what you mean. Specifically, you said: > This all seems reasonable to me. That sounds to me like you are agreeing that what the article says is happening is reasonable, whereas now it seems that you are saying that the law being passed is reasonable, and that the article is mis-reporting it. Yes?
- gozur88 10y ago
  Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented. You're reading too much into what I said. The law is reasonable. The article is sensationalized, though not as much as the HN title.
  - CarolineW 10y ago
    > Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented. OK, now everything you've written makes sense - thank you. > You're reading too much into what I said. Sorry, but I just read what you wrote and took what I thought was the most obvious interpretation. As I explained earlier, you said: > This all seems reasonable to me. When that's a reply to a link to an article, it seems reasonable to me that the "this" should be referring to the article. The downvotes make it clear that my expectations were wrong. Thank you for your clarification.