I agree people are perfectly entitled to express their opinions and that it's important for civil society to engage with these things, especially with regards to the police. (NB: we're not talking about the police, however.)
My suggestion was that, given we're laypersons, if we're confused how this could be illegal and it conflicts with our understanding of the law, it's probably a safe assumption the regulators understand the law better.
Not commenting at all or passing judgement without trial isn't what I'm advocating for. It was a descriptive statement, not proscriptive one. If you asked what I would suggest as a response to realizing you might not understand the situation, it would be doing some more research into the law.
If that research leads you to the conclusion that this genuinely is an overreach, so much the better - before you had a suspicion, and now you have evidence for it.
My suggestion was that, given we're laypersons, if we're confused how this could be illegal and it conflicts with our understanding of the law, it's probably a safe assumption the regulators understand the law better.
Not commenting at all or passing judgement without trial isn't what I'm advocating for. It was a descriptive statement, not proscriptive one. If you asked what I would suggest as a response to realizing you might not understand the situation, it would be doing some more research into the law.
If that research leads you to the conclusion that this genuinely is an overreach, so much the better - before you had a suspicion, and now you have evidence for it.