On Sunday, November 10, 2019, 06:40:15 PM PST, Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
   wrote:

   On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com>
   wrote:
   >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already
   >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could
   >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation".  But your
   >imagination may differ.
   >             Jim Bell
   >DUDE! We're talking about a federally taxed and regulated (FCC FTC et
   al) CORPORATION, NOT an individual! If they get a GAG ORDER or whatever
   it might be called legally, they WILL EXECUTE IT, including any
   searches and destroys they're capable of if demanded.
   You are merely speculating about a 'gag order'.   Why invent that
   imaginary factor?   Nobody has received a gag order, or at least
   they're not talking!!!  (Ha ha ha ha ha....)
   And don't forget Steven Schear's "Warrant
   Canary": [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary      Regularly
   publish a "non-warrant" announcement, which you stop publishing if a
   warrant arrives.
   >There was also a bunch of idiots who thought that online proxy service
   that acted on a court order a few years ago should have 'done a riseup'
   and taken a fireaxe to their server, but as I said at the top, they're
   a bunch of idiots.
   Bad events do happen, sometimes.
   >Also note that someday soon the espionage act will be modded to make
   it a crime to pass on information that you weren't even aware was
   classified, which is EXACTLY the reason why Julian Asssange claims to
   have had the inspiration for Wikileaks.
   Which is one good reason that my Assassination Politics idea needs to
   be implemented.
                  Jim Bell

References

   1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary