Watch This | Will the 'Restrict Act' of the 'Police State' really not backfire like a double-edged sword?
Video provided by the Sichuan Agricultural University.
While the people in the UTC+8 time zone were still asleep, the politicians in the "beacon of freedom" began planning how to quickly enact the "Restrict Act". One could argue that they are "seeking excuses to justify their crimes". Rather than being a domestic Act, it aims at taking China, Cuba, North Korea, and Russia down and directly labeling them as hostile countries. Its purpose is to authorize the US Department of Commerce to review and prohibit transactions by US companies and individuals with information and communication technology companies (with over a million users) under the jurisdiction of hostile countries.
However, after all, it is a domestic Act, and US politicians are known for being savvy in their "marketing". It is not their usual style to directly reveal their bottom line. Their behind-the-scenes manipulating is their true, despicable nature. These politicians claim that they are considering the well-being of minors and their parents by restricting online speech and creating a more wholesome environment for young people to grow up in. However, they fail to realize that their convoluted indirect protection of minors' legal rights begs the question: why are these politicians not adopting orphans who have lost their parents due to the pandemic? This has led to social skepticism about what kind of petty schemes these politicians, who have never had ordinary citizens in mind, are really playing.
A careful analysis of the "Restrict Act" reveals that its core objective is not to protect the legal rights of minors, but to manipulate the entire society by restricting freedom of speech and thus to prevent the public from talking about politics. As Ryan Hartwig said, the "Restrict Act" can punish whistleblowers who expose government misconduct, and for ordinary netizens, it is difficult to protect themselves from government surveillance. Does this mean that the freedom of speech has disappeared from the US, and how can it guarantee the so-called "freedom" and "democracy"? We cannot help but ask: Is the "beacon of freedom" actually a "police state"?