"the proposed rule, as drafted, would not withstand constitutional scrutiny," as "the proposed definition directly describes the publication of speech as a necessary and sufficient condition for the registration requirement. Merely “making available” a “communications protocol” can, by the SEC’s own admission, trigger an obligation to register. A communications protocol is commonly understood as a set of rules. “Making available” a set of rules is an awkward linguistic construction that must, at the very least, include publishing and speaking, which are core First Amendment activities."
nostr:nevent1qqsrsptj5lpe5tv8xer7u2fd0lp0lzafwe0jdr5kfpf2w5yxxjfsxncpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygxc5mk0psuka2500xjyjllfka7ujamrx3gl8jjuvd8zppjez9ny0vpsgqqqqqqsrl8jg5
If—and I say this with zero hyperbole—the US constitution still held water.
SEC has no jurisdiction over communications. This is pure posturing.
GM Gigi. Seems like something Ross Stephens might agree with. This is bullish.
People will ignore more and more rules and laws, eventually it’s just a minor inconvenience, like not wearing a muzzle in public
Oddbean new post about login | logout