I mean, it was an app the directly interfered with law enforcement… it’s not like he made them remove angry birds.
Discussion
Freedom of speech, code is speech Tim. If he demands someone to silence someone else then he is no better than those we criticize.
It's not silencing, my understanding was the app identified ICE locations and movements. It's a pure interfering with the law situation. Though I will say we have done the same thing with speed traps for years and no one seemed to care about that.
It’s kinda funny watching people complaining about lack of free speech as they freely speak about the issue on NOSTR, X, Youtube, Rumble,…….
Speaking of which... nostr:nprofile1qqsvg2m6lkpn4j7u3kj6lnw54v3w2wlrd6smlq4g6pgq39eywjhylaqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qgewaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8xmn0wf6zuum0vd5kzmp0wkgsv3
There is no legal statute anywhere stating that simply reporting on the location of armed and self-identified LEOs has anything to do with "interference" of their operations.
This is 100% first amendment protected free speech, and Apple is caving to fascists like Stephen Miller by doing this.
I don’t think you understand what free speech in the 1st amendment means.
Targeted Warning with Criminal Intent is Not Protected: Specifically communicating information with the intent to help a criminal evade arrest, escape justice, or commit a crime is a criminal act and is not protected by the First Amendment.
Publicly disclosing the location of LEO's = "interfering"?
I would say so in this case, its purposely telling those who would be arrested or have broken the law, not to go there. Which therefor inhibits enforcement. Look at is as the reverse of the registered sex offenders list. Which tells us where the bad guys are, very handy for parents. This app was telling the bad guys where the good guys are (i understand that of course is a matter of perspective)
Yes "bad guys" is very much subjective, I tend to side against the masked men ziptying pregnant women, but to each their own I guess...
And leaving aside for the moment the fact that "breaking the law" in this case constitutes predominantly administrative infractions related to immigration rather than anything that be considered a serious crime by most people...
Why should armed and (barely) self-identified LEOs have the presumptuous of privacy in public when members of the public don't?