Lawyer: RESTRICT Act Makes Us Criminals

Want to ban TikTok? Fine! But don't give sweeping powers to bureaucrats and make us criminals. The bipartisan RESTRICT Act is terrible for all Americans!
Leave Andrew a voicemail with questions or ideas: www.speakpipe.com/flusche
NOTE: This description may contain affiliate links for you to find the items mentioned in this video and support the channel at no cost to you. Thank you for supporting the channel!

[@dsabre4990]

Restrict act gives more power to the Sec of commerce than any police force or federal prosecutor. This is insanity.

[@BillySBC]

Until she delegates such authority to the police... Welcome to Devil's Island, there is no escape.

[@Pwnopolis]

@chuck 8094 There is a shit ton of moves that can and should be made by concerned citizens before "rebellion". If your first thought is to react with violence, remove your self from thought activities immediately.

[@TheMelnTeam]

@@Pwnopolis It's a predictable reaction, when people find out they're in a rigged game they can't get out of. Do not forget, jail time/forfeiture are coming from an institution which, per our setup, has the legal monopoly on violence. Violence will be used to put you in that jail, if there's even a hint of necessity to do so. Said institution also has plenty of examples of abuses already, some egregious, with minimal consequences to the abusers in most cases. State is also actively pushing to reduce the capability of that last resort measure, through "gun control" that "protects children". Though this is more a product of a generic power centralization which any government has selective pressure to pursue rather than any organized conspiracy, it can still be useful to remember/remind that rebellion...while a last resort option...IS an option.

[@CarterEdison777]

@@Pwnopolis If your first thought is that ‘rebellion’ must equal ‘violence’; YOU might be the terrorist!

[@CarterEdison777]

@chuck 8094 Did you find the leaflet? Post it and I’ll help.

[@Phalanx443]

This "Restrict Act" needs to be placed upon the Government, not citizens.

[@RB-wt6pg]

Yessssss.

[@BrokenCircle1]

"Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both"

[@TedTheAtheist]

*lose.. it's one "o".

[@BrokenCircle1]

@TedTheAtheist Yeah thanks to my phones autocorrect for that one. It won't even let me use certain words sometime....I tried to type 'nerd' earlier and it corrected it to 'need' I'll fix that.

[@TedTheAtheist]

@@BrokenCircle1 Everyone always blames the phone autocorrect. It's usually not that. :)

[@PapaTanGh0stNI9htM4R3S0nMaInSt]

It's touyube save grammar for the penpals and granny.

[@glennwhis]

Granny died. She was listening to advice of penpals from pfizer

[@real_exodus]

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. -Thomas Jefferson

[@cementer7665]

Which is why WE MUST no longer hesitate to "water the tree of liberty".

[@danielboone8256]

@@cementer7665The means of watering in 1776 are not as effective today.

[@dudearlo]

they kinda do fear us though xD

[@Ethan7s]

Wow, basically let’s them do ANYTHING, if they merely believe it’s a “security risk”.

[@stevesalles6047]

can the restrict act be used to muzzle Donald Trump

[@creepingcharly]

Not that they listen to constituents anymore, but I contacted my representatives and asked them to vote against this bill. It's crazy overreach!

[@Pwnopolis]

This right here is the proper step one. Good on you.

[@PrezVeto]

They actually do. It doesn't always determine their vote, but their staff does give them tallies of callers for and against each measure under consideration.

[@ZacksRockingLifestyle]

@@PrezVeto good to know!

[@jupitercyclops6521]

​@@PrezVeto Haha! Ok!

[@jupitercyclops6521]

​@@Pwnopolis Keep telling g yourself that. I understand reality is scary, but we will have to face it if we're going to deal with it

[@spencerlail8282]

Made up rules by unelected officials are not laws! ATF: oh yeah?

[@Kevil911]

Great video and very well explained. Most people don't know this and they need to know and share it.

[@newguy2794]

Andrew, thank you. It's just too bad, in my opinion, that you live in Virginia. That's because if you lived in my state, you would be my lawyer. Have a great day, and be safe.

[@brucemartini2288]

AGREE

[@linuxguy1199]

3:35 It's not just VPNs, just visiting a website could be deemed the same since most websites use encrypted HTTPS, and some services are starting to use encrypted DNS.

[@ninjabreadman8166]

I wonder if it would also hit people who need to use VPNs as a condition of employment...

[@sonictech1000]

Depends if the secretary likes you or no.

[@nasis18]

I had heard of the Restrict Act, but I had no IDEA of the true nature of the bill. Thanks for the great explanation. 👍

[@lindaward3156]

I get the shudders every time I hear that the powers that be are doing something for our "safety"

[@EarlHayward]

Don’t worry, I am from the government and I am here to help! As a government employee, I would never let my political views to influence my judgement, nor lie to a FISA court, nor use knowingly false information to arrest you or others…

[@AeroGuy07]

I don't have tiktok and feel pretty much the same way you do.

[@Direwolf1166]

Makes the Patriot act seem tame.

[@PopCultureCannabisPodcast]

We have the right to privacy, this legislation needs to be stopped.

[@poodledaddles1091]

Thanks

[@jcreeker5581]

Great video. The eleven most feared words that can be heard by a free American; "We are from the Government and we are here to help." Let us push back against this bill as this is a free country and not a police state.

[@olysean92]

Whoa. It's like when they made us report cash transactions over $10000, and then started arresting people for withdrawing less than $10000, for circumventing the reporting.

[@sonictech1000]

Anarchy isn't a lack of law, it's a situation where everyone is potentially breaking the law all the time and enforcement is arbitrary.

[@gump1005]

You are 100% correct.

[@fporretto]

Once again, "national security" is being used as a blanket rationale for totalitarian federal action.

[@JoJo15105]

Please email your Senators and Representatives, Democrat or Republican asking them to oppose the Restrict Act.

[@1dgrdgr]

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

[@CosmicHarmony58]

yo….you…. go away

[@Inpreesme]

Thank you

[@jukebox1138]

They will define digital threat as anyone who says anything online they don’t like

[@auburn886]

I know several large corporations that require their employees to use VPN's on their computers. I could see these companies suing that tyrant if she decides to go after them.

[@QwertyCaesar]

They don't care about us using VPNs as long as the VPN server is within the United States. Government can then just get the information they want from that server owner. Anything that you send through a U.S. VPN server is already de facto compromised by the federal government. The real thing they're cracking down on is VPNs hosted outside of the United States - servers outside of their immediate jurisdiction. Let's create a likely scenario. Let's say a GOP candidate wins 2024 on the platform of a total ban on abortion and they follow through and the federal government has a ban on abortion. Let's say somebody wants to look up how to force a miscarriage - if they don't use a VPN they'll be caught immediately. If they use a VPN hosted within the U.S. if there's suspicion that the user was involved in a miscarriage then the feds will look up their internet history, subpoena the server, and get the data proving they made that search. Busted. But let's say the person is smart and uses a VPN hosted in Canada. Canada isn't going to cooperate with with the US government in handing over data if it results in prosecutions for abortion so they tell the U.S. government to kick rocks. The user is this protected from prosecution. Now if they make using a VPN from outside of the U.S. a crime then the feds may not be able to prosecute for the abortion but they'll still throw the user in prison dor the eeeeeevil crime of accessing information the government doesn't want them to know and then press the user to flip and rat out others. That's a very likely scenario as some governments around the world have attempted similar things. Dozens of other nearly identical situations are possible as well. What if the government has a few pharma lobbyists bribe some politicians and is enforcing a monopoly on a life-saving medication such as insulin. If you want to look up how to make bathtub insulin to bypass paying $1,200 a month to simply not die then you're out of luck because if you try to use a VPN to not get busted you'll just get busted for that and go to federal prison. Or maybe you're trying to look up information that makes Dear Leader President Whoever look bad that is being suppressed and you get arrested like they do in China where VPNs are also illegal. Or maybe you're just using it to watch Netflix but you're on some government official's shitlist so they use this as an excuse to throw your ass in prison.

[@jonathanjohnson8656]

Great video. Thanks for pointing out how they are using another overreach instead of going after the actual problem ..

[@peggyh8937]

Thanks. I appreciate the breakdown.

[@jautrey2223]

Love you Andrew! I've never used tiktok either! I do support its ban, but totally agree with you about this act. Ugh.

[@hamletthaus3046]

As if we Americans didn’t learn already from the PATRIOT Act. A good law with good intent abused by the govt who We the People they are sworn to protect.

[@handlesR4TrackingU]

“Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.” ― Thomas Jefferson

[@chrismcphail5378]

It is time for states to begin succeeding from the Union.

[@herbertfawcett7213]

This is the same sort of thing ATF is currently being sued over!

[@beanhavok2287]

They try to pass this law every ten years or so.

[@deltax8202]

They do?

[@beanhavok2287]

@@deltax8202 Yeah I honestly can't remember what it was now. But I remember people saying it was the Patriot Act of the internet.

[@argentorangeok6224]

"... or otherwise mitigate... " I love the sound of that.

[@bpdp379]

Sounds just like the powers given to the ATF!

[@Claynobi]

I also took a look into this law and was extremely worried that it gave the government a foothold on the internet

[@jasmine2501]

There's nothing politicians hate more than people just doing whatever we want, without their knowledge or permission. That goes for all sides and all levels.

[@BobJones-zw3ui]

#OUTRAGE😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫💥

[@p12423073]

Andrew, how does this get around freedom of association, free speech, free press, and 4th amendment protections?

[@DrD0000M]

Well, the trick is they take the bill of rights...ignore it and hope the Supreme Court ignores their shiny new law.

[@Backonos]

thank you, I have wanted a lawyer's breakdown of this for a while.

[@bradwatson7324]

The frog continues to be slowly boiled.

[@corydailey1486]

There are strong commonalities with this and the ATF. This concerning unelected bureaucrats power.

[@rudder727]

Thank you for this video... the more this gets out the better. The main stream media companies will never report on anything like this.

[@cementer7665]

Of course not, the LYING, LIBERAL, ELITIST FILTH of the MEDIA stand, just like law enforcement to greatly benefit from this. Both 'professions' ARE TRUE ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION, and INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

[@dcsblessedbees]

It "could"🤣it will.

[@iamnolegend2519]

Thank you. Shared.

[@Turtlefunny]

Met in person randomly and revived some quick advice. Turned out just as Andrew said it would, which was a good thing. Thank you and solid attorney.

[@tomfilippone6303]

Like civil asset forfeiture, it’s difficult to anticipate how broud the abuse of this could become. Scary.

[@MrOldclunker]

We are already a police State...this coming from a former law enforcement officer that resigned years ago as I wasn't going to go into a police State.

[@annelarrybrunelle3570]

This act would essentially mean "All your base are belong to us." Why don't they just call it the "Abrogate The Constitution Act" and be done with it? BTW, would this empower the Commerce Secretary to seize, fine, and imprison the President? Just wondering.

[@rockinmama007]

I haven’t ever used TikTok as well

[@thomasleach9417]

We can't let this pass.

[@ruffdawgg]

The 2 scariest words in the US… bipartisan support

[@michaellowe3665]

Wow, it sounds like what they did to the 2nd ammendment with the NFA in 1934.

[@mayhem7455]

It's the written word. It doesn't "say" anything. It READS.

[@johncassani6780]

All laws that grant regulatory power to the executive branch should be repealed. They are un-American, and certainly violate the spirit of the Constitution. Emergency executive powers should only be able to have enough duration in order to convene Congress in order to discuss the passage of legislation that directly addresses the specific issue. If they don’t pass it, then there is nothing to enforce.

[@davebrunson125]

ATF for computers

[@Zanatos9]

Sounds like the same garbage they're passing in Canada.

[@covidhoax7646]

That is clearly unconstitutional.

[@charlesvalkyrie4096]

Work from home companies all use VPNs so that should be interesting........

[@sdnlawrencej5662]

Bi-Partisan bills are always more dangerous and oppressive to citizens than single -sponser bills.

[@bradmaas6875]

All about control, might be too late already.

[@TheWhiteDragon3]

Good Lord, it's _another_ expansion of the Commerce Clause

[@Andrewflusche]

Just wait until the dormant commerce clause springs into action. Nobody ever expects the dormant commerce clause!

[@cementer7665]

And, WITH the full, unqualified support of each and every law enforcement agency,(even if they are so far removed as to never having heard of TikTok, etc,), just because it WHEN, NOT IF, is passed, expands the already existing, and ever increasingly intrusive police state that law enforcement MUST have, since these domestic terrorists "know what is best for us".

[@rpm3605]

There goes secure encryption software, iPhones, and iPads!

[@Jaykwan88]

Thanks for this, and thanks to your wonderful office staff who helped me out recently over a traffic ticket inquiry - they are fantastic! We all appreciate all that you do! Would you say the precedent for this had previously been set by the CDC being able to override personal property rights?

[@Andrewflusche]

You're welcome! This type of bill is how the federal government operates on most things. They abdicate their authority to some fed agency who makes up rules, and the penalty for violating the made-up rules is imprisonment.

[@greyape59]

This better get shot down or we're all fucced.

[@QwertyCaesar]

This law would create the Great American Firewall.

[@ba1868]

Gee, if only there was a branch of government that had the responsibility of making sure all bills were constitutional before they left congress, not years or decades after they became laws.

[@ltbadger2121]

Tree at 120 mph here I come, this world has gone down the shitter.

[@Kenneth2413]

It's probably a violation of the 4th amendment, but even so it would be hard to prove that in court. The patriot act is also undoubtedly unconstitutional, but it keeps being re-upped whenever it's about to expire.

[@TheFalconJetDriver]

I do not use tik tok for the reason you stated, people that are not elected should not have the power to create rules or laws.

[@keithromersenior155]

Democracy must constantly be preserved and that only happens with sacrifice and constantly fighting those who would steal our freedoms

[@viking956]

We should be limiting police powers not increasing them.

[@cmatrix4761]

This has been a very disturbing trend into terrible administrative governance.

[@09FLTRMM77]

MM77 Approved 👍🏼👍🏼

[@BubuH-cq6km]

this bill doesn't even focus on tik tok the Tok id just a a distraction, Joe Rogan was also recently talking about this bill along with Jimmy Dore

[@chanlin007]

I feel like they're just stealing Joseph McCarthy's playbook here.

[@daviddevault8700]

Leave us alone

[@dominicvg051]

And FOIA is inapplicable as well which makes it impossible to hold our government accountable. INAPPLICABILITY OF FOIA.-Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well as any information the Federal Government may create relating to review of the covered transaction, is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the “Freedom of Information Act”).

[@allenbanks910]

You have a good voice - I often listen but can’t always watch the videos and you remind me of my favorite teachers from a looong time ago. I think it must be your inflection - not everyone has that skill and it can make listening difficult. But you also sound friendly, which I suppose is a good combo if you’re talking about legal things. Keep up the good work - it’s very interesting!

[@JadeDragon407]

Keeping things very vague, so that they can apply it to anything they deem fit. Anybody who doesn't think this county is already China Lite isn't paying attention.

[@williambrown7203]

Yet another reason for a convention of states.....

[@rev.dr.davidcole8915]

Fascism embodiment.

[@kevinerbs2778]

The whole "Restrict act" violates the constitution your & right to privacy.

[@WadeMaster789]

As a 'lawyer'... You should know the difference between 'persons' and people. Stop protecting their foreign jurisdiction.

[@jackjones9460]

How do I find a lawyer to be “my lawyer”? I’ve recently realized I may benefit from having a lawyer available, just in case.

[@aycc-nbh7289]

I’m pretty sure that the bill is aimed at larger corporations more so than individuals and that the bill’s text apparently says that technology used to interfere in elections, with deceptive intent, or a national security risk would be the ones being targeted. I agree that it would be a slight overreach in authority if it passes, but we may not have to worry just yet. People from both sides of the political aisle may be raising similar concerns just as much as they are (or at least were) supporting this bill.

[@EC4400]

We are not SERFS and wealthy people are not LORDS. We can unite and demand a better way. We have more than enough Lawyer, retired judges, political officers. that can strategize a more productive government.

[@TankGuy3]

I've never used Tiktok either.

[@srdool]

They will just say by decree " It is punishable not to talk to the police"

[@PapaTanGh0stNI9htM4R3S0nMaInSt]

Wholly unconstitutional.

[@itowmyhome797]

🎉

[@Chris-hq7nl]

I’m so glad to see a lawyer covering this.

[@alekorgruene313]

I’m sure the rules of the act would be applied equally and fairly. No need to be worried about corruption.

[@VintageMoments]

I don't use tiktok, it is exactly as you describe.

[@MrCyclingobsession]

The term molan labe, comes to mind. You want my stuff come take.

[@Mouserjan0222]

I have never used Tick Tock

[@DarthVader-1701]

Mark Warner the democrat from virginia wrote this bill, anything he's attached to is bad.