This article is frustratingly vague on what the judge actually did. Probably because it’s not nearly as clickbaity. The judge has blocked enforcement of the new law until the lawsuit has been resolved. Given the 1st amendment implications that’s the right call for the judge to make even if the law is ultimately upheld.
The first amendment is a limit on government power rather than a grant of individual rights. Consequently, lying is protected speech under most circumstances.
“most circumstances” that don’t involve defrauding others for some reason.
For example, if these anti-abortion clinics are pretending to be abortion clinics and then lying about the services they provide- or the nature of those services, which they don’t even provide- to try and convince people not to get abortions…
that is fraud. and it constitutes harm. and absolutely should be treated as such.
another ‘its not actually protected’ that’s relevant is if they’re just telling absolute horror stories about, for example, women who regret having the abortion, or playing up severe complications while insisting they are in fact experts.
both are things anti-abortion clinics have done. I’m not saying these in particular are, but I’m not going to be terribly surprised to find they’re not
but this isn’t about lying. this is about lying to prevent people who are seeking medical care from obtaining said medical care.
“Oh it’s okay they’re just lying” is an absurdity. they’re committing fraud, probably, and the new law seeks to address this because that this particular fraud is enough a problem that it needed it’s own law.
Saying in an argument about fraud that dishonesty is protected speech is a bad faith argument. You’re allowed to lie, but you’re not allowed to break the law by misrepresenting and your business in business dealings.
There is a difference and your continued assertion that they’re the same and that the former is even relevant is bullshit. You’re also not allowed to pose as medical professionals and give patently false medical advice.
Regardless of what actions they’re taking, they don’t get to hide behind “free speech” which has never protected people from the consequences of said speech.
In the context of this conversation thread. To summarize it for you, this conversation thread is about the statement, “but I don’t think the first amendment gives you the right to lie to people with no consequences”. The answer is that generally yes it does.
You are too rude to have a meaningful conversation with, so this will be my last response.
it absolutely doesn't.
Especially when you represent yourself as an expert or medical professional.
what these clinics are doing is medical fraud and malpractice... for the purpose of preventing women from getting lawful access to medical care. It's downright vile... and 50k fines is not enough. There should be jailtime.
It’s common in lawsuits such as this for one party to make a motion to block enforcement of the law pending the results of the case. In extreme cases, the judge may grant such an injunction. This all seems straightforward to me. Frankly, the title pretty much gives away the whole article, which is the opposite of what happens with clickbait.
It’s always frustrating when these cases end up in the hands of Trump-appointed judges. More often than not they’re ruling based on their ideology rather than the law.
I think you are underestimating the significance of the ruling. In cases like this, judges issue temporary injunctions if they believe the law will most likely be found unconstitutional when the lawsuit is resolved. The judge described the law as a “blatant violation of the 1st Amendment”, indicating that he will most likely issue a permanent injunction later.
So it’s only the “right call” if you agree with him. And if it matters to anyone, this judge is a Trump appointee.
So it’s only the “right call” if you agree with him.
No. It’s perfectly reasonable to at once support women’s rights over their own bodies but also see serious first amendment questions in this sort of law.
A similar law that targeted abortion providers would be similarly problematic. If you don’t see it that way then you aren’t looking at the question from the perspective of the first amendment.
If the question is whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate, then yes. A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo while the case is decided. Since the the law plausibly infringes the plaintiffs’ first amendment rights, the proper judicial decision is to preserve the status quo. This is the general rule applied to all cases of this nature and should not be construed as evidence of bias by the judge.
Really, my point in commenting has more to do with calling out the AP for sensationalist reporting than with the merits of the case being reported on.
A preliminary injunction is appropriate if the plaintiffs are very likely to succeed. Otherwise you or I could block any new law by endlessly “preserving the status quo” with a stream of lawsuits.
So if you think that the preliminary junction is appropriate, then you must agree with the judge that the law very likely violates the First Amendment.
On the face of it, it probably does. Whether it actually does will require a careful legal analysis of the law’s intent, scope, and whether there are alternatives that the state could have used.
This does not mean I approve of the plaintiffs’ speech. This does not mean I disapprove. It means that I value the first amendment and understand it, and so do not see a problem in how it’s been applied in this case so far.
I’m discussing technicalities not arguing the merits of their case. If that’s not the sort of discussion you’re interested in then I suggest you find someone else.
I am simply pointing out that a preliminary injunction is not issued by routine in cases like this. Therefore, it is newsworthy rather than “clickbait”.
Furthermore, it strongly indicates how the case will ultimately be decided. So if you agree with the injunction, then you should agree with the plaintiffs in this case. If you disagree with the plaintiffs, then you have good reason to disagree with the injunction. Therefore, some people are rightfully very concerned about this news.
That is all. I am not interested in arguing the merits, either.
The article is clickbaity by being vague, not because the subject is not newsworthy.
And a preliminary injunction is routine if strict scrutiny should be applied. I agree that it probably should be applied based on the general characteristics of the law, and yeah the law will probably fall short of that standard and as such it ought to be struck down, but that does not in any way imply that I agree with the plaintiffs speech.
I didn’t say you agreed with the plaintiff’s speech, I said you agreed with the plaintiffs. Namely, that the law should be struck down.
By arguing that the law ought to be struck down, you are arguing the merits despite your protest earlier. In which case, there are plenty of restrictions on commercial speech that are in keeping with the First Amendment. For example, Elon Musk was sanctioned because of his speech regarding Tesla stock.
The First Amendment is not some get-out-of-jail card that allows commercial entities to say whatever they want, particularly if they are being deceptive. And strict scrutiny does not apply to commercial speech. That’s why there is an entire federal agency, the FTC, whose mission includes regulation of commercial speech.
There are even more restrictions on speech when health care is involved. If your doctor posts all your medical records to their blog, the First Amendment won’t protect them. If you sell a home remedy that you claim will cure cancer, the First Amendment won’t protect you. If someone lies about being a doctor and you consent to a physical exam on that basis, the First Amendment won’t protect them.
Maybe you think the First Amendment allows these particular plaintiffs to deceive potential clients about health care. Well, that’s your opinion. But plenty of legal scholars - and historical precedent - argue otherwise.
I’m saying it probably falls short of the standard and if so it ought to be struck down. If you can’t accept that I’m being sincere when I say that’s my whole fucking point, then I don’t know what else to say.
I don’t doubt your sincerity. But I think your legal analysis is wrong.
The correct standard here is not strict scrutiny, it is intermediate scrutiny. This is a much more permissive standard that applies to all commercial speech. And it allows restrictions on what one can say, in order to prevent deceptive practices like those I described.
The Supreme Court described their approach to commercial speech in 1980 (my emphasis):
At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
The Illinois law bans deceptive speech by certain companies trying to gain clients, and therefore it does not violate the First Amendment.
Actually, it’s your legal analysis that is wrong. Because your analysis begs the very question that the court is trying to answer: is their speech protected?
The answer is right there in the quote by the Supreme Court. Commercial speech is not protected if it’s misleading. So by definition, a law that bans deceptive speech is constitutional.
In the case of these plaintiffs, maybe their speech is misleading and maybe it isn’t. That’s up to a jury to determine. If it’s misleading, then they are breaking the law. If not, then they are not breaking the law.
But either way, the law stands. When you find someone not guilty of a crime, that doesn’t mean you throw out the law against the crime.
I’d be fine if they just would get over their lying, grifting, shit-slinging “leaders.” Of course, while I’d like if there were “legitimate” conservative candidates, the truth is that I don’t know what that would even look like. Eisenhower?
Honestly, good for them for doing what they can against human trafficking. It’s worth offending a person here and there to save people from that terrible fate. Unfortunately, differing skin tones/ethnicities are probably the easiest indicator of human trafficking to watch for.
Edit: I assume race isn’t the only thing they consider. If it is the only criteria necessary to confront someone, that’s obviously a problem.
Edit 2: I’m sick and my brain isn’t working right. Maybe I am just being stupid – it wouldn’t be the first time.
Yeah, and they should totally be stopping people in turbans to prevent terrorism! Who cares if a few people are offended if it means saving lives, right?
This is a bad take. There are so many mixed race families in the world. It is not okay to start harassing all of them just because they might be doing something wrong. It’s literally just racism no matter how you try to dress it up.
There are millions, if not billions of dollars in the human trafficking economy. Continuous reports of rich and powerful people all over the planet participating in it. Disgusting human beings willing to treat children like animals for their own gratification.
And you think these people won’t start hiring adults of the same ethnicity as the children they’re trafficking to move them?
It’s such a reductive argument. “Just question any group of people if the children are a different ethnicity than the adults they’re with! Let’s not look at the kids body language, or the way they interact. Race is clearly the indicator!”
Yeah. How much human trafficking is actually going on at airports with a “parent” flying “their” child somewhere?
If some sicko is a billionaire with a private jet and is THAT dedicated to getting a kid to them, they’ll fly them on their private jet. You know, like Epstein.
And if they’re the “usual” human chattel that is treated like cattle, they’re probably being transported in some slower, cheaper method than a plane that (1) costs way more and (2) has a dozen security mechanisms designed to catch you.
This is just racism and people buying into Qanon propaganda.
differing skin tones/ethnicities are probably the laziest indicator of human trafficking to watch for.
FTFY.
This is the same attitude that gets minorities killed all the time, for “looking suspicious” while occupying their skin in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes, easiest and laziest are basically synonyms in this instance. I assume they have other criteria before confronting people, and if not, that’s obviously problematic.
Edit: Or maybe I’m being stupid. I don’t know, and my head is too foggy to think it through right now.
That’s the basis of every argument against free speech, Save the Children is more and more a dogwhistle excuse to harass a group someone doesn’t like. Drag queens, lgbtq folks, adults creating and consuming adult content.
It’s a way to intrude on privacy and free speech in a way that is unconscionable.
It would be nice if my country could have two functional political parties. Right now we have one that thinks if it does something once a decade it is too radical and the other is eating horse dewormer.
I think it would be nice if more moderates from each party were more prominent. Right now we really have mostly very right leaning republicans and very left leaning democrats pushing legislature, making news headlines etc.
Where? The democrats would be center right in any other western country. So who are these very left leaning democrats you fear? Bernie is as left as they come in America and he’s barely left leaning.
I would like to see people running for positions in government actually interested in government. The vast majority of running stuff is just running stuff. Taxes get collected, bills get paid, vacant positions filled, roads get built or repaired, cops don’t murder unarmed minorities, and if you have time you get to fix maybe one big problem. It isnt romantic, you don’t get interviewed by some talking head, or sued, or boycotted, it is just making sure that things basically work.
And I am not seeing that. I am seeing one party terrified of doing anything and another that pushes in some very radical position that causes devastation.
where are these left leaning democrats? at worse we have bernie and aoc who thinks people who work 40+ hours a week shouldnt be impoverished and that everyone deserves healthcare.
What moderate Republicans? The few that didn’t gleefully embrace fascism (e.g. Liz Cheney) have been run out of the party. And even the left fringe of the Republican party is awful.
Not entirely sure why all the downvotes were necessary but I guess this is just like Reddit. I was just commenting on what the issue seems like to me. I’m happy to hear differing opinions but “lol @ very left leaning” comments and downvotes are hardly constructive.
Anti-fascism is not. But how many rank-and-file Republicans even know that’s what Antifa stands for? All they know is they’re evil violent rioters because Fox News or Newsmax or whoever says so.
I don’t see how that’s a result of bad marketing, though, just the right’s usual usual brainwashing to make people react negatively to a word, just like they did with CRT, woke, etc. If they can do it to a word like “welfare” that’s literally one of the first words in the Constitution, they can do it to anything.
The sad fact is that any words we choose are vulnerable to being poisoned and turned against us. Some words and phrases are a lot more vulnerable than others (like “defund the police”), but it can happen to any words.
There are conservatives arguing that Antifa stands for Anti- First Amendment (anti-f-a), but a vast majority think it’s a new word with an ambiguous meaning.
Most people would agree to anti-facist ideas. The same people polled on Antifa would say otherwise.
Some “church” pulpits are helping spew that stuff, too. (Not all churches, and I’d go so far as to say not real churches. Political campaign theaters masquerading as religious institutions.)
Yeah, there’s absolutely nothing new about the war on “wokeness”, they just swap out the names every now and then
The PC Mob
The radical left
Antifa
SJWs
Socialists
Communists
They all mean the same thing in this context, but they know that people tire of specifics quickly, so they keep changing labels. I guess this study means that they’ll likely pick a new word for the boogeyman soon
Trump needs to be buried deep enough that he’s not a threat as an independent, and so they can win over some “swing” voters, but they don’t want to alienate his supporters. This is going to get really awkward.
In all honestly its completely random now. They get some "initiative" and restructure getting rid of whole teams. Good and bad alike then hire on some purple unicorn basis and ultimately the lost teams work is just transferred to other teams. They still have you waste time with performance evaluation but that is mostly about explaining why raises are so low while earnings are so high.
No one is buying the ‘hur dur in the office is more productive’ bs anymore.
It totally is a silent layoff, but I think a large chunk of the older execs still actually believe the office is more productive. There’s also a large chunk executives who have investments in commercial real estate companies who are trying to put off the complete collapse of that market so they can get more of their money out before it all goes to shit.
Don’t lay offs make sense though if people are being more productive at home? The tech market is contracting so they won’t be looking to take on new projects so much as cutting unnecessary overhead (and labor is usually the largest tech company expense), which they only have because the increase in productivity isn’t being offset by new work (projects) coming in?
“I need to pick a religion, but I can’t decide which… oh, yes, Catholicism looks good.”
You 👏 don’t 👏 need 👏 religion. Just live your life. Make genuine connections with friends. Be good to everyone. Try to leave the world better than it would have been without you. No magic required.
Are they not watching what’s happening in Ukraine? I guess if you got a hard-on for dying, you would be excited to go, I would have a bit of a problem with being on a landing craft and having a HIMARS spraying you with a 1000 tungsten balls.
And that’s just the mothballed stuff designed to kill Russians! The Chinese killing stuff we haven’t even touched yet!
The mere fact he's still likely to win the next election is such an embarassment. I'm not American but it's genuinely worrying if you're European too. You just know he'll cave to Russia within days of being elected.
If you're Ukrainian it's horrible. Putin has no motive to stop the war till after the election. If Trump wins, he'll do his best to fuck over Ukraine and help Putin.
And I know there's a sizeable amount of Trump supporters in Taiwan and Trump likes to go on about being tough on China, but given Trump admires Xi, those in power have got to be worried about the prospect of a second Trump term too.
On the plus side, I hope that Europe has finally realized we can't rely on the US, and need to rebuild our defense industry. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily serve US interests, as we may be forced to side with China on certain issues against a beligerent US administration.
As an American I hope your last paragraph is true. Ive come to hate America, better yet American, not the land, it’s clear people, nature, and humanity are low on their list. Another country should break our fake image of worth. I hope someday I can leave America or this place changes completely.
If another country doesn’t break our fake image than another politician will come along to use us people and motivate us to live for false hope that continues to rape our lives.
It goes deeper than politics… It’s our businesses and business culture too. As well as the people that normalize the over-consumption consumerism lifestyle.
I’ve experienced both sides, mainstream and street life and they are both the same… The successful in both cultures use the same abhorrent methods to gain power.
Where are you getting this “fact that he’s likely to win” ? He didn’t win the last one and he’s worse off this time. Also there are loads of new voters who are finally old enough to vote that are sick of all the anti-abortion anti-LGBTQ stuff the right has been pushing the last 4 years. If you regurgitate that rhetoric it’s more likely to happen.
Trump is invariably within the margin of error. Add a bit of election interference, a third candidate to siphon votes, some gerry mandering, a bit of help from a partisan supreme court, ...
If you regurgitate that rhetoric it’s more likely to happen.
I have a related degree.
An important way republicans will try to win the election for Trump, is to target democratic voters with propaganda which suggests that Biden is certain to win or that he's more right wing than he actually is, thereby lowering democratic turnout.
They know they won't convince young voters to vote conservative, they know they won't win majority support, so they'll try to convince progressive to not bother voting at all.
The polls are only showing that because he hasn’t clinched the nomination yet so the huge number of people who dislike both candidates don’t feel like they have to make a decision yet. Once that happens, I think we’ll see a big drop in his numbers. I could be wrong, but I’m usually not, at least when it comes to politics.
An august 1-2 poll of Michigan voters, 44% Trump, 44% biden, 8% other, just 5% undecided. It's unlikely they'll all split Biden, and even they disproportionately did, a Trump win would still be well within the margin of error.
Biden isn't an unknown quantity. Trump isn't an unknown quantity. Voters know what they stand for by now, they know what they'll be like as president. And yet it's still close.
Let's put it this way, I admire your optimism if you assume Biden will win easily.
We will know soon enough. I was right when I said that there wouldn’t be a “red wave” during the midterms, in spite of what the polls said, and I’m positive that I am right when I say that the polls aren’t giving us a clear picture of what to expect of a third Trump presidential campaign.
Again, what I think we’re seeing in the polls reflects a dislike for both candidates, but not a dislike that’s evenly distributed or felt with the same degree of vehemence.
Teasing out that difference is difficult using traditional polling methods, but it becomes obvious when one looks at how many Americans find Trump objectively abhorrent.
My prediction is that Biden defeats Trump handily, not in a landslide, but convincingly enough to permanently show Trump the door.
There won’t be any gerrymandering for President unless they are able to change State boarders. Voter suppression in targeted areas however is possible.
That’s their plan. Anyone posting bullshit like that is someone I’ll be immediately suspicious of. Trump will lose again and maybe it’ll be blow that sends his racist cult back under the rocks they came from. Everyday boomers are dropping to old age and younger people are hitting voting age. The last election was their last chance and they knew it, that’s why they all knew what he was trying to do and they went with it. Soon we can start repairing the damage they’ve done and start working ourselves back out of the 60’s and look to the future.
And also Q-Anon isn’t a thing anymore, which was a base of his firmest believers, fighting against Hillary and others, who were said to be eating children in a Washington Pizzeria. But I really ask myself what on earth could make people hold on to this criminal and vote for him…
I’m sorry to say it but Q-Anon is absolutely still a thing. They aren’t as loud but I know at least 1 person in my town who rants about Q-Anon type shit.
The most depressing part of it all is that if Trump is in the rush to win, neoliberals would still blame the stupidity of the people, or anything else, except themselves. IF Trump sucks and is about to win, imagine how much Biden sucks
I am absolutely TIRED of politicians never having to do any “Mea Culpa” and blaming everything else except themselves for losing an election, I am tired of neoliberals shitting on people and then say “If you don’t vote for us then the world is gonna burn”
Biden went to power with Universal Basic Income, Debt Pardon, Universal Healthcare, and was able to achieve NOTHING, 0, NADA, NYET
I am tired of the only argument of the neoliberals worldwide is always the boogeyman on the other team, instead of some kind of merit they could have
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.