71–80 of 217 posts
Just waiting for that batshit bounty law (in Texas) to spread to other states. Basically, any citizen can sue anyone if they suspect aiding or abetting an abortion. There are seemingly no recourses either, for the defendant. If successful, the plaintiff can be awarded up to $10k - therefore a bounty law. So by that logic, you should be able to sue the owner of a website - as long as it is within the state, because th…
Not 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…
It's more about scoring brownie points with your base and tying up your opponents in litigation for years... Even if they know the law is blatantly unconstitutional, there's no real downside to the legislatures (assuming their constituents support the unconstitutional law)
Earlier 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 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 absur…
And people do fetishize the 200 year old document. (At least, the parts they like.) You see it all the time, and saying otherwise is also form of fetish or worship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.
To me, the bounty hunter law is reprehensible, but not as much as the motivation behind it. Those with that motivation can be treated as a single group. And to be frank, I don't care if they're unhappy to be lumped together. Lie with dogs and all that.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.
Quoted post unavailable.
I don't know about that; I think it is possible to oppose abortion, but not seek to do so via legal remedies. Like opposing drinking or smoking, or game microtransactions, or IoT devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
A bill is a proposed law, by definition. You're assuming bad faith where there isn't any.
Quoted post unavailable.
Then why are so many characters in the Bible having sex outside marriage, or engaging in polygamy?
> 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…
“We could have acknowledged it was bad reasoning in a legal context but not a human rights and that a fix would just create the same status quo and left it.” — sane people
Agreed; this was a political flex to remind the proles grandpa is still sitting in the corner rambling nonsense.