Does the bill include a clause forbidding the transport of phones and computers across state lines for immoral purposes?
10 Likes
Which will be every bit as effective as the ones at my college. Words like Kentucky (âuckâ) are unsearchable, anything related to breast cancer, cervical cancer, uterine cancer, childbirth, etc etc cannot be viewed. Actual porn? Of course. Completely available. Idiots.
9 Likes
This bill is easily mocked, but what is scarier is the âmaterial harmful to minorsâ wording. That can easily be expanded to include inconvenient climate science, links to Democratic Party websites, etc.
11 Likes
Transgender youth support communities are a very real target for the Republicans and other TERs right now.
15 Likes
Yes, the âetcâ in my comment can cover a lot, depending on who makes the rules for this âporn filterâ. Usually that means the most repressive elements in society.
5 Likes
My example took things from hypothetical to actually happening today. We all know that there are people out there who dismiss our worries if the threat is only potential, but it is harder when we already have evidence of it happening and it forces cryptofascists to go mask off.
12 Likes
This bill is explicitly targeting a vulnerable group of people. Itâs going to do real harm to that group. Thatâs the real threat here, not where it could go in a hypothetical.
10 Likes
3 Likes
7 Likes
In late April, when Biden talked about mass shootings and gun control, he used the âYou canât tell fire in a crowded theaterâ idiom. The Popehats and other First Amendment fanatics got all worked up as per usual.
When policy/law wonks focus so damned heavily on the case law history and other crap like this, and forget or ignore how itâs an effective shorthand idiom for how Constitutional rights are not absolute, how pragmatic responsibility should temper how we exercise our rights, and the fact that Biden used said idiom as a response to the right wing gun fetishists who think that their 2nd Amendment rights are absolute, I think makes it clear that those policy/law wonks are more interested in free speech for free speechâs sake than any sort of justice.
7 Likes
Iâm right with you. Every time someone starts arguing about that bad case I want to say, âSo you can yell âfire!â in a crowded theater?â
The whole reason they used that example in that case was it is a good example.
10 Likes
A good example for what? Having established that there was a theoretical boundary for free-speech claims, the court then proceeded to shrink that boundary rapidly inwards to exclude all sorts of political speech. Itâs the rhetorical equivalent of saying âno one lives foreverâ, and then killing people when they reach age 30.
1 Like
Yeah, thatâs exactly what it was. But now every time someone says, âno one lives foreverâ people pop out of the woodwork to seemingly argue thatâs untrue. It would make sense if the phrase were clearly a slogan associated with a particular political movement or otherwise had a lot of baggage.
But in this case I feel like people are trying to load the âfire in a crowded theaterâ phrase with historical baggage it just doesnât have. When people hear the phrase, they understand it to be an example of a way in which someone could use mere speech to directly cause physical harm. And people broadly seem to agree that is beyond the scope of free speech.
13 Likes
What else might they be censuring here?
10 Likes
Todayâs the anniversary of Tienanmen square.
8 Likes
Iâve stood on that square. It was weird. Now there are hundreds if not thousands of cameras all over the place.
9 Likes
I just checked DuckDuckGo on my desktop (Mac Mini, Firefox, lots of protections which sometimes interfere with pulling things up), and there were all the usual references, starting with Wikipedia and moving on to current articles. No problems at all.
11 Likes
Duckduckgo on Brave browser on Android. I dunno, I still get nothing.
8 Likes
