Seems like an open and shut free speech case, to me. But they’ll find new ways to get around “inconvenient” things like this, no doubt.
South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
21–30 of 217 posts
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#22Not a lawyer but doesn't this have serious 1st amendment problems? Article gets into this a bit: "Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said the First Amendment and Section 230, a bill that shields internet providers and tech companies from liability for the posts, photos and videos people share on their sites, provide a strong defense in many instances for websites and providers facing l…
The purpose of the law isn’t made with any consideration of its legality. This is a signal to force people to ask themselves if they’re willing to be prosecuted to prove out their rights.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#23> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…
>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide.
Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forced to travel out of state to have an abortion was just how it goes while we figure out how to get the book keeping figured out; as if the woman who was forced to carry a dead fetus inside her for weeks because the hospital didn't want to risk being sued was just one of those tragic, unforeseeable, unavoidable victims of our imperfect democracy.
These are lives we're talking about here. And it's only going to get worse. Sorry to use a cliche, but wake the fuck up y'all.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are we using a 200+ year old document that represented the preferences of maybe 20% of the country to regulate the internet? That seems so completely absurd, almost like people are turning it into a holy book or fetishizing it.
> Why are we using a 200+ year old document Because it’s worked. The alternative, opening up the entire system of government for debate, simultaneously, continuously, predictably tears itself apart in a generation. (That or you wind up with an unwritten Constitution only the elites can decipher.) The Constitution isn’t sacred. But it’s far from worthless as a basis of our society.
Most modern, developed nations regularly update their constitutions. The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#25Not a lawyer but doesn't this have serious 1st amendment problems? Article gets into this a bit: "Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said the First Amendment and Section 230, a bill that shields internet providers and tech companies from liability for the posts, photos and videos people share on their sites, provide a strong defense in many instances for websites and providers facing l…
Depends on how packed the Supreme Court is, with the "Right" Justices, when the test case get to it.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends almost wholly on how the state Constitution was written. As long as it doesn't fall afoul of the US Constitution. And it's hardly trying to be North Korea. Hysterics don't help, and actually hurt any rational discussion.
Why are we using a 200+ year old document that represented the preferences of maybe 20% of the country to regulate the internet? That seems so completely absurd, almost like people are turning it into a holy book or fetishizing it.
>Why are we using a 200+ year old document that represented the preferences of maybe 20% of the country to regulate the internet?
Because it and following interpretation provides the boundaries for law in the US.
And comparing it to a fetish, or labeling it a 200 year old document, when is has been changed since then (last amended in 1992, still has multiple amendments pending, and can be changed again) is also absurd.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#27From the article: "South Carolina state senators introduced legislation that would make it illegal to “aid, abet or conspire with someone” to obtain an abortion." This bill isn't law, which is what I thought based on the headline.
Phrasing a proposed bill as if it has taken effect is a standard tactic to evoke extra emotion resulting in extra clicks.
Edit: seems I was wrong because bill means proposed law, so the clarification would have been redundant
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#28How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause? SC would have no recourse for web hosts that have no nexus within it's borders? Are they going to start to force local ISP's to block out of state hosts?
>How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause?
Laws are allowed until the Court rules on them. The states can pass all manner of fucked up laws (and they will), and they will stand while we figure this out -- or, until the Supreme Court rules in their favor.
Edit: changing Supreme Court to Courts, since the appellate court exists. But the point is the same.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#29No post body was provided.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#30How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause? SC would have no recourse for web hosts that have no nexus within it's borders? Are they going to start to force local ISP's to block out of state hosts?
I think you're underestimating how ... flexible ... the Constitution is lately.