Noooooo

You don't see how?

That's why.

It's because its not the same.

I don't understand why Democrats want to stop idiots from losing their money, except as some sort of "gotcha" law passed by Newsom. Who exactly are they trying to protect? And more importantly, why?

OR

You're a son of a president, selling "Art".

Not so sure about that. We have Biden and McConnel

There is a reason why its not enforced, it is exceptionally hard to prove AND generally doesn't rise to criminal activity. Politicians lie all the time in Advertisements. All sides do it. It isn't new, or one side is better than the other.

A politician can say they are in favor of the new "don't kill puppies and kittens" law, that also has a bit that allows them to send millions to their buddies at the "don't kill puppies and kitten NGO" and doesn't save a single puppy or kitten. And if you oppose it, you hate puppies and kittens and want to kill them. Its all a lie, wrapped up in emotional language. What can I do to stop it? Who do I call? And why do they hate puppies and kittens?

So, this Meme Coin Law isn't going to do anything useful except for "Owning " someone somewhere for political points. Puppies and Kittens.

What was the basis for his rise to power, if not for SF Political Circle, with Pelosi at the helm?

Its not unfair, because it exists. The SF Democrat Cabal is close nit.

You can shout "Fire" in a theater. There is no such prohibition anywhere. Especially if there is a fire. What you can't do, which doesn't fall into 1st Amendment arena, is causing panic without cause. That has VERY specific legal criteria that must be met. "Narrowly tailored".

And people can lie in advertising, and do all the time. There are a whole bunch of hoops that one must jump through to bring such a charge against the advertiser, specifically to protect 1st Amendment rights. There are, indeed very NARROW and TAILORED precedents that are designed to PROTECT 1st Amendment rights.

You're the kind of person the 1st Amendment Auditors love to target. They are annoying, but also operating legally, as much as that upsets people.

Crying "Bullshit" does not make your case, it literally says exactly what's going on, you are emotionally responding to things you don't like.

You can claim all the stuff you want to claim, and that doesn't make it right simply because you cried "BULLSHIT".

And yes, a business plan is a first amendment right. If it is a pyramid scheme, then go after that, it is already illegal. Meme coins are just modern Digital BeanieBabies. I know plenty of people who spent enormous amounts on those (and similar pop culture items), and then are left holding mostly worthless trinkets.

Sorry, but just because some Karen (Newsom here) says "There ought to be a law" doesn't mean there should be a law.

Nancy Pelosi's Nephew isn't a NEPO baby?

It is a First Amendment issue at heart. Do you believe in the 1st ? This is a good litmus test.

"I want to ban people from expressing themselves this way because I don't like it"

I don't like MemeCoins in general, but I don't care to ban them. Fool and their money and all that follows.

Oh, we’re just going to ignore trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets are we? Very good, carry on

As for there *not* being an infinite number of ways of designing a slab phone, you’re a muppet. You think you’ve come up with counter-examples by showing that some designs are impractical, but that’s not a counter-argument. There’s an infinite number of ways to write a post on Slashdot, but most of them will be rubbish. Doesn’t mean that there aren’t also a huge number of good ways to do it (actually an infinite number). I imagined you weren’t being so dumb as to think about cubical phones as slab phones, and would understand that this meant rectangular phones without a folding component, and that might cause you to introspect, but apparently not. Oh well

Stephen Wolfram does a good job explaining things.

Might be some good money in owning one.

The thing is with quote marks, you need to use them around something that the other person said. I didn’t say “proof”. That was your word. And I have specifically pointed to particular factors, you dimwit. I will mention a couple of them for a *third time*: governance and training. Do you really fucking need me to go show you the governance rules for ANPR in the UK? I can do, but how fucking tiresome, when the answer is exactly as I said it, the governance rules (a) exist and (b) are extensive, and neither of those things are true of the US. It’s just so fucking pointless with you people. You argue black is white for ever and ever, and die in a ditch on such stupid fucking things. Go look it up for yourself, the ANPR governance framework for UK policing is literally avaiable on the internet for you, and there’s no such equivalent for the US. All you have to do is look up NASPLE.

and goi look at this, you dipshit https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.college.police.uk%2F...

You’re the one that’s made an assertion based on anecdotes, nobber, not me. I’m the one that was talking about systemic factors such as training and governance, on which you are conspicuously silent.

And finally, I just watched your supposed counter-example, and boy was that a wild self-own on your part. Throughout the entire chase, the officers were continually assessing risk, giving clear information about the direction of the absconding vehicle, talking in calm voices despite the incredibly stressful situation, etc. And when they caught up, they didn’t PIT, they boxed him in, got him out of the car, got tasers out but didn’t use him, didn’t beat him up it was the model of a professional chase. You’re a buffoon who can’t understand the point I was making.