I can't quite make out the second line, but yes, that's about what I got. (I believe the words are, It is currently illegal, but then, yours seems no less plausible. Incidentally, the final bit looks like it's The Organized Crime and Policing Act)
Which merely raises a new conundrum. It's easily the most dramatic, unbelievable statement of all of them, yet if credibility was the maker's goal, it wouldn't be included in the first place, and if sensationalism was, it wouldn't be blurred.
And now one of the commenters is saying that they are real, but they're meant as a mockery of the government. Which makes most sense in context of what they say (certainly I was waiting for a punch line at the end of the post originally) and the illegible text, although I'm somewhat dubious of the investment it would take to pull this off.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 02:13 am (UTC)"It is utterly illegal to protest in this area without a permit
Refraining from pressing the button may be used as evidence against you."
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 03:25 am (UTC)Which merely raises a new conundrum. It's easily the most dramatic, unbelievable statement of all of them, yet if credibility was the maker's goal, it wouldn't be included in the first place, and if sensationalism was, it wouldn't be blurred.
And now one of the commenters is saying that they are real, but they're meant as a mockery of the government. Which makes most sense in context of what they say (certainly I was waiting for a punch line at the end of the post originally) and the illegible text, although I'm somewhat dubious of the investment it would take to pull this off.