My humble guess is because typography is really just a (mostly non-political/religious) form of psychological and philosophical debates.
Look at the discussion surrounding the typography on Pope Francis' tombstone to see how the typography conversation/debate easily transcended the religious background it originated from, which seems atypical to me.
OK, can someone please explain to me how the 'arena' swimming wear brand chose the kerning for their logo 50 years ago to be the way it is now? This 're' combination is killing me every time I see it.
It's certainly some inappropriate kind of intimidation, but the concept of prior restraint includes some claim that the person is forbidden from doing something, and it typically pertains to speech acts rather than to the distribution of functional tools. "He better watch out" from the AG is certainly a serious threat, but its meaning is too vague and implicit to reach the level of a prohibition or to definitively pertain to speech acts.
Sort of by definition, prior restraint is when the government prevents someone from doing something (in the context, of the term, generally always speech/expression) prior to it happening.
This is the kind of bluster that has certainly become more common in recent years, but has to some extent always been part of political theater. You'll see the same kind of thing every now and then if somebody tweets about how they'd love to feed a political figure into a wood chipper, or that the government should be launched into the sun. The Secret Service or some executive official will post that they're "investigating the matter and will take all available action", only for it to turn out that the comment was obviously protected speech.
This doesn't seem to be true. Implications of Government speech are not taken lightly and I can see examples of "informal censorship" including implied threats of legal action being classed as prior restraint. Pretty moot given today's US legal environment though.
"Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the majority opinion that stated that the actions of the Rhode Island commission to Encourage Morality in Youth were unconstitutional due to their actions violating the First Amendment by placing a prior restraint on free speech. Justice Brennan's opinion stated that the commission's practice of notifying book distributors and retailers about "objectionable" publications, combined with implied threats of legal action, effectively made a system of informal censorship."
The company claiming something you said, even out of context, could be interpreted as coming from the company. If you choose to disclose you work for a company, you become a spokesperson for that company unless you disclaim those words (even then, there are other considerations to make regardless of whose opinion is being expressed, because you linked yourself to the company.).
By putting that, they decrease the likelihood of reprocussion in the workplace for things said outside of the workplace.
You can still get in hot water for anything you say that ties back to you or the company regardless if you disclose who your employer is.
This is the grey-area that corporations typically carve out in a social-media policy so that employees can engage in discussions around their employer without being on behalf of their employer.
It's still a perilous position to put yourself in as an employee. Innocent and innocuous things can always be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
What happens when you use that disclaimer and are self-employed though?
This is the de facto playbook for one of the Mega-Evil Corp.'s CPE firmware (Gateways, IPTV receivers, etc...).
New firmware is pushed in phases 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% then full scale.
Each stage has some delay incorporated for acquisition/application and then for telemetry (including support contacts from affected accounts) to determine impact and allow for regression fixes.
The other reason they would phase launches is because of firmware builds being used across multiple CPE models and hardware revisions, where only a small subset of hardware could wind up being problematic, but not discovered until deployment.
When you have millions of devices deployed, even a fraction of devices having an issue can create a shit storm on the support side of things.
It all seems so obvious once you know to think about it.
433MHz is attractive because it's low frequency allows it to propogare farther with less energy input than higher freqs (900MHz; 2.4GHz) would need and does not suffer from nearly as much reflection off of obstacles thanks to that longer wave.
There are several frequency ranges in the US that are unlicensed for transmission. But don't confuse unlicensed with a lack of rules governing what you are allowed to transmit; how often you can transmit and for how long. Because you can plop a 433MHz transceiver into anything, you want to be careful that you're not clogging up the local airwaves by not knowing to know the rules. Also, most smart meters (near me anyway) operat in this band sending out pulses every so often. They mesh together to relay the data towards a central collector. Thanks to that low frequency, hundreds of meters can be visible at times showing up as tiny chirps all over this area of the spectrum. Unfortunately this also means that some cheap receivers (just looking for any signal on a very specific frequency in that range, can be randomly triggered by this 'noise'. But also, because it's used by utilities, to want to make sure they don't end up having an issue with meter readings because you began running a wifi link over 433MHz.
Which has me wondering if the entire point is to make the politicians critically aware of how absurd AI performance monitoring isn't as innocuous as those selling it to the politicians will make it out to be.
Look at the discussion surrounding the typography on Pope Francis' tombstone to see how the typography conversation/debate easily transcended the religious background it originated from, which seems atypical to me.