|
haveblue posted:The plan is for those people to die, and with their dying breath curse the Democrats That would be their preferred outcome yeah, but I remember they were panicking back in 2015 or whenever when it looked like their second attempt to destroy Obamacare might succeed. Also ya know failing to repeal it in 2017, so they're not 100% confident everyone will blame the Democrats
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Pretend for a moment that we had ideologically neutral and objective arbiters of constitutional law on the Supreme Court, what approach would be most likely to stand up to constitutional scrutiny if you wanted to fight against fake news in the United States? Could you: -Actually get internet sites like Facebook to more proactively moderate and curate its content for fake news, misinformation, conspiracy theories and so on without dismembering safe harbor for much of the internet or tripping over the 1A? -Could you actually regulate the airwaves of "news" channels like OANN, RT, etc for misinformation without running foul of jurisprudence on things like libel/slander or the 1A?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
If you want to go semi originalist you could roll back 1A jurisprudence to early 20th century views, when socialist newspapers planned protection because they presented a clear and present danger to government, comparable to yelling fire in a crowded theatre*. And people publishing socialist pamphlets were arrested and imprisoned for dangerous speech. Doesn't seem unreasonable for a judge to say that people making that kind of speech are guilty of the same thing and empowering law enforcement with warrants to serve against platforms for the identity of people making those kind of posts. Obviously if Congress feels this situation is bad for free speech they would be welcome to legislate on the matter. *This is actually the case where that phrase became famous
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
You could dismember safe harbor protections only a little bit, to kill off these vast hives that are impossible for humans to moderate while making accommodations for sites that are making a good-faith effort. Specifically, by disallowing protection for algorithmically generated listings and only allowing it for content explicitly requested by a user.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
haveblue posted:You could dismember safe harbor protections only a little bit, to kill off these vast hives that are impossible for humans to moderate while making accommodations for sites that are making a good-faith effort. Specifically, by disallowing protection for algorithmically generated listings and only allowing it for content explicitly requested by a user. I honestly feel like this is probably a better approach is not actually striking at the content per se, but at the fact that these large companies rely on algorithms to both (a) insulate themselves from accountability by having a proprietary technology that they can't "discuss or disclose" and (b) desperate trying to justify hiring as few people as possible to please shareholders. Crack down on algorithm driven services, mandate a proper consumer protection and consumer privacy regulatory framework and I think that probably damages the ability for fake news to spread. Doesn't really help with OANN/Sinclair etc, but just gotta fight fire with fire there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1329827474931216384?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
Merrik Garland, the centrist, who was chosen specifically because he was acceptable to the GOP. I need to find me a succ zone to post in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Also Merrick Garland the centrist who still occupies a lifetime appointment on one of the next-most important courts after the Supreme Court, and would have to give that up with a GOP-controlled Senate for the temporary post of Attorney General.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
When your hearing is going well https://twitter.com/tomryanlaw/status/1329866383660761088?s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
That Garland article reads like the usual person-floating-their-own-name kind of stuff. "Two people closely following the process" doesn't really establish that the sources have any special insight into someone's chances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
Rolabi Wizenard posted:Merrik Garland, the centrist, who was chosen specifically because he was acceptable to the GOP. Garland was never actually acceptable to the GOP either. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
yeah let's pull Garland off the DC Circuit that seems like a great idea
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:yeah let's pull Garland off the DC Circuit that seems like a great idea I mean Biden would appoint his replacement right? ....right????? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I mean Biden would appoint his replacement right? Biden won't be able to appoint a single judge unless Dems takes the Senate (either via the GA special elections or 2022).
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Piell posted:Biden won't be able to appoint a single judge unless Dems takes the Senate (either via the GA special elections or 2022). He would, but it'd require mass appointments when Congress is in recess. Since McConnell will never willingly let the Senate recess he'd have to rely on Pelosi to force the issue so that he can order Congress to recess and for the SCOTUS to not go "well yes the Constitution SAYS you can do that but, well, gently caress you."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Pretend for a moment that we had ideologically neutral and objective arbiters of constitutional law on the Supreme Court, what approach would be most likely to stand up to constitutional scrutiny if you wanted to fight against fake news in the United States? What even is objective my dude? You're asking us to consider a round square here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 13:12
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:What even is objective my dude? I think enough people understood my point that you didn't really need to ask this question, just look at the other posts in response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LambdaLegal/status/1329838435159470098 At first I was real confused because how could a medical procedure be defined as free speech? Then I remembered what conversion therapy was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 12:18
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:https://twitter.com/LambdaLegal/status/1329838435159470098 I'd be very interested in how an en banc decision on this one would go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
I recall reading elsewhere that the anti-conversion therapy provision in this case was structured really badly, such that a legal challenge was much more legitimate than it needed to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I recall reading elsewhere that the anti-conversion therapy provision in this case was structured really badly, such that a legal challenge was much more legitimate than it needed to be. If you could find that argument, I'd love to see it. Unless I'm missing something, the challenge seems directly tied to the ban in an inextricable way (at least not without allowing therapies that are tantamount to psychological abuse). From the decision, it sounds like the primary argument from the plaintiffs was that they were calling their therapy "speech-based therapy" and thus argued that it should be covered by first amendment protections. That's despite the fact that they offering it as a therapy services as licensed professionals, and while they say that they cannot change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, they claim to be able to help "reduce unwanted same-sex attraction and 'eliminate' confusion over gender identity" (a difference without distinction to the abuse victims they continue to abuse). The law prohibits licensed professionals outside of clergy from engaging in practice intended to change sexual orientation or gender identity (with exception for aiding gender transition). I'm not sure who you could structure that in a way that still includes "speech therapy" without inviting this very same challenge. The county/city have evidence that all such professional therapy is hugely damaging - it's tantamount to continuing the psychological abuse of children who are already suffering psychological abuse at the hands of their family, clergy, and/or peers. And there's plenty of precedent for banning or regulating such behavior - emotional abuse is already illegal in most jurisdictions, even when wholly of speech. Regardless, it's pretty clear that these judges never intended to even entertain the evidence, though, considering that call the speech "controversial" and "unpopular", rather than abuse. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something subtle about the structure of the laws, though? Stickman fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Nov 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 06:37
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:From a progressive perspective Garland is not a bad pick to replace Breyer. He's old enough that when a younger more progressive President is elected they can replace Garland probably. This is just so unbelievably naive. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 06:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I recall reading elsewhere that the anti-conversion therapy provision in this case was structured really badly, such that a legal challenge was much more legitimate than it needed to be. My understanding is that it’s worded as narrowly as reasonably possible. The real problem is that “professional speech” cases (e.g., that ban on doctors asking about guns, various laws requiring or forbidding various health professionals to say certain things about abortion) are a murky area of the law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
The real problem is that only the regressive party is allowed to appoint judges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
The era of "freedom of religion means that laws don't apply to religious people" has begun: Splitting 5 to 4, Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo’s Virus Shutdown Order NYTimes posted:WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court late Wednesday night barred restrictions on religious services in New York that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo had imposed to combat the coronavirus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 07:40
|
|
|
i feel like a system in which lawyers are the supreme authority on epidemiological issues is not a great one
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
I think you'll find lawyers are experts on where religion is more important than medicine. The fact that some people who don't follow that religion may be affected is just a sign of their despotic opposition to freeze peach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 09:13
|
|
|
None of this is surprising but  at Gorsuch thinking he had a real zinger there, show me the bike shops or liquor stores that pack hundreds if not thousands of people into an indoor space for an hour plus you libertarian hack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 09:22
|
|
|
Sydin posted:None of this is surprising but What struck me is lefta sort of opening, in that he’s not suggesting it’s unconstitutional to have any capacity limits on a church, but that it’s unconstitutional to treat churches different from any other type of institution. So if you want churches at 25% capacity, you need to do that for retail, restaurants, basically anything. “The law must treat churches the same as everybody else” is different than “churches are above the law.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 09:37
|
|
|
That's dumb as hell though because it ignores that differing levels of risk exist for differing activities. Popping in and out of a liquor store that has ~10-15 people in it who are all wearing masks is a lot less likely to result in you coming into contact with an infected person or catching it from somebody then sitting shoulder to shoulder with hundreds or thousands of people inside for an hour during Mass. We have concrete evidence that certain indoor activities - restaurants, gyms, places of worship, etc - pose a way higher risk of infection because it's mostly the same people who occupy the same indoor space breathing the same air for a sustained amount of time, which is why those indoor activities have been more heavily curbed than others. I also highly suspect that if Cuomo countered with "okay fine ALL indoor activities have to reduce to 25%, whether you're praying, grocery shopping, or checking out bikes" and we'd still get a 5-4 about how this is a violation of free speech somehow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 09:56
|
|
|
These capacity limits are all based on fire ratings, right? This raises a number of questions. Fire ratings are content neutral. We don’t care if the people in the seats are watching a play or a preacher, we just care that they can file out of the pews and through the exits before they collapse from smoke inhalation. There’s not a perfect correspondence between fire risk and disease risk. Installing sprinklers doesn’t do anything to stop a virus form spreading (unless…), but it may raise a building’s occupancy rating. The same hall can have one rating for dining, another for standing, and a third for use as an auditorium. This makes sense because more people can evacuate the space in the same time if there isn’t furniture in the way, but for pandemic purposes, silent seating is probably better than a stand‐up mixer, and dining capacity should be even further derated. Would the majority opinion allow more tailored occupancy limits, with more relation to disease risk and less to fire? Plays and preachers are similarly likely to create superspreading events. Singing indoors should be forbidden, no matter the lyrics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
Since the Supreme Court now wishes to be a religious authority, they should lift their own coronavirus restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
In the section on public interest, the majority opinion states: "The State has not claimed that attendance at the applicants' services has resulted in the spread of the disease. And the State has not shown that public health would be imperiled if less restrictive measures were imposed." It sounds like the door is open for a more targeted set of measures. Kavanaugh points repeatedly to other states where the limits were 50 people, 100 people, or 25% of capacity, as opposed to New York's 10- and 25-people cap. Also, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh suggest it might be okay if the same measures were equally applied to other institutions. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the logic of the ruling. The idea that restaurants and gyms deserve looser restrictions than churches is not borne out in public health research. Even if they universalized the restrictions at 25% of capacity, it would still be questionable. Spit-flinging people cramped into tiny restaurants is probably worse than mask-wearing people in a big church.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 10:49
|
|
|
Do you really think that the state didn't show that public health would be imperiled if less restrictive measures were imposed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
its also essentially trying to say you can't be more restrictive than other states, because otherwise you'll get hit with that stellar whatanoutism from a guy who probably demands antibiotics for a flu
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 14:29
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:https://twitter.com/LambdaLegal/status/1329838435159470098 i like how the top reply immediately blames bernie
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
If you look at Roberts' dissent, it looks like the case is actually moot because as soon as the church plaintiffs filed suit, Cuomo modified the order to exempt them, and the 50% restriction that is in place now (I'm not sure if this is enjoined - haven't actually looked to see if it is a separate EO) is the relief the plaintiffs' sought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If you look at Roberts' dissent, it looks like the case is actually moot because as soon as the church plaintiffs filed suit, Cuomo modified the order to exempt them, and the 50% restriction that is in place now (I'm not sure if this is enjoined - haven't actually looked to see if it is a separate EO) is the relief the plaintiffs' sought. it’s never been about the actual result, it’s more about establishing precedent in the event that even more severe restrictions were proposed and just sticking their thumb in the eye of Big City Liberal Andrew Cuomo it’s ridiculous, of course, because no politician in america has the balls to stand up to a church because the optics would be miserable
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:
Churches, maybe, but DiBlasio had some well publicized Jew hunters poking into synagogues this summer to make sure the Orthodox weren’t doing their things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Here in Illinois, churches have been ignoring the rules since the beginning. With no local law enforcement regarding the restrictions and no politician wanting to stand up to them, it has became just a game of “come on”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELxLj6damX8
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 15:56
|
|
