It can probably be written in such a way that this style of speech can be argued through the new law to fall under some of the exceptions, perhaps incitement or fraud.
They may just decide instead of policing the speech, to police the practice, and make being an investor even more arbitrarily difficult.
I can easily imagine a law getting passed that in order to invest in a brokerage account where you have autonomy over the investments requires you to be an accredited investor, and it will be worded so that it is for the benefit of the people who were taken for a ride on massive "pump-and-dump" schemes that originated on misinformation platforms and social media, regardless of whether they were truly pump-and-dump or just tom-fuckery against "big hedge".
Can you post a link to some comparison of arbitrariness of ex-UK legal systems and other systems?
These laws will not be legal under US law, because US congress is not permitted to make a law abridging an act of speaking, or expressing an idea, or opinion.
> Finance is highly regulated and arbitrarily so.
The level of arbitrariness of legal process in legal systems of ex-UK colonies is in league of its own in the world, and USA is particularly prominent at that.
In US, financial regulations are some of the most vaguely defined of laws, in the rest of the world, they are usually are the most verbose, and formal in definition.
A law whose execution is wholly arbitrary is not a law at all, and a country allowing arbitrary interpretation of laws is lawless.
This is why what is "technically legal" is legal. What is defined in the law as legal, or not defined as illegal is what is legal. This is why no smarty pants bureaucrat should be allowed to wiggle out arbitrary powers by coming with "interpretations," "extended definitions," or "legal theories."
> If you think the lawmakers and regulators will throw their hands up and say geez, it's technically legal, carry on, you're sorely mistaken.