[cauch]

I have a pretty clear understanding that the crazy misuses that some people are pretending will happen are obvious and will not happen because it's basic law making.

It's like saying "they say they want a new law that reduce car speed to Xmph on those new kind of road, it's crazy, it means that they can fine me if I run too fast on GTA5". It does not mean that I have sources or insider knowledge when I say that it is unrealistic because it never happened with plenty of similar and that if they can do that, why don't they arrest you when you run over pedestrians in GTA5.

[caseysoftware]

> I have a pretty clear understanding that the crazy misuses that some people are pretending will happen are obvious and will not happen because it's basic law making.

Then steel man your argument. Every example you give is a wild far-fetched one that is clearly away from any area of ambiguity or debate.

Challenge yourself by looking at the grey areas and explain where the line should be.

[cauch]

That's quite a reversal when you are steel-manning your argument by pretending that the large majority of politicians and legalists in Wales are so much uneducated that they did not notice this obvious misuse that you, you have noticed.

Just to be clear: there are grey areas in the question of "what is the truth", but this is not new, as "what is the truth" is the job of the judicial system since forever. The judicial system is built around that, around the fact that what is true for someone is not always true for someone else and how to find a good balance.

[caseysoftware]

> "they did not notice this obvious misuse"

You presume incorrectly both my reasoning and my conclusion.

I believe 100% that they see and understand how this can be misused. That's their intent. They likely believe this is a weapon they can use against their rivals while also believing it can never be turned against them.

From working in DC for 10 years - through PATRIOT, McCain-Feingold, NDAA (various), and more both on the Hill and at Justice - I learned there are two political parties in DC but not the ones you suppose. It's really incumbents/establishment vs challengers. Prior to 2016, most of the other stuff was just noise.

*Btw, you've been explaining judicial procedure to a number of lawyers on this thread. It's amusing but unproductive.

[cauch]

You know that "they" refer to more than just "the politicians in power", but to the whole people involved, including opposition, small parties, independent law specialists, ...

Maybe you see that from the US point of view where politics is reduced to a pathetic childish power fight. But the fact that in US any single law has the potential to oppress people does not mean that in other places, normal laws cannot be a good thing. The problem is not in this law proposal, the problem is that in US the situation is very bad.

edit: also, are you really saying that they want to manipulate and lie to the citizen and that the best way they've found is to ... make lying to the citizen more difficult? They could push for plenty of laws with the excuse of security or helping the economy or ... that can be misuse to attack their opposition without being able to be used against them. Honestly, if indeed they are pushing this law because they will think it's easier for them to lie with this law than without, they probably not smart enough to use it properly and this law is, again, at worst harmless.