This article is frustratingly vague on what the judge actually did. Probably because itās not nearly as clickbaity. The judge has blocked enforcement of the new law until the lawsuit has been resolved. Given the 1st amendment implications thatās 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.
āmost circumstancesā that donāt 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 donāt even provide- to try and convince people not to get abortionsā¦
that is fraud. and it constitutes harm. and absolutely should be treated as such.
another āits not actually protectedā thatās relevant is if theyāre 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. Iām not saying these in particular are, but Iām not going to be terribly surprised to find theyāre not
but this isnāt about lying. this is about lying to prevent people who are seeking medical care from obtaining said medical care.
āOh itās okay theyāre just lyingā is an absurdity. theyāre committing fraud, probably, and the new law seeks to address this because that this particular fraud is enough a problem that it needed itās own law.
Saying in an argument about fraud that dishonesty is protected speech is a bad faith argument. Youāre allowed to lie, but youāre not allowed to break the law by misrepresenting and your business in business dealings.
There is a difference and your continued assertion that theyāre the same and that the former is even relevant is bullshit. Youāre also not allowed to pose as medical professionals and give patently false medical advice.
Regardless of what actions theyāre taking, they donāt get to hide behind āfree speechā 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, ābut I donāt think the first amendment gives you the right to lie to people with no consequencesā. 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.
Maybe Iām crazy, but Iām not sure what you mean.
Itās 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.
Itās always frustrating when these cases end up in the hands of Trump-appointed judges. More often than not theyāre 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 āblatant violation of the 1st Amendmentā, indicating that he will most likely issue a permanent injunction later.
So itās only the āright callā if you agree with him. And if it matters to anyone, this judge is a Trump appointee.
So itās only the āright callā if you agree with him.
No. Itās perfectly reasonable to at once support womenās 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 donāt see it that way then you arenāt 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 plaintiffsā 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 āpreserving the status quoā 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 lawās intent, scope, and whether there are alternatives that the state could have used.
This does not mean I approve of the plaintiffsā 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 itās been applied in this case so far.
Iām discussing technicalities not arguing the merits of their case. If thatās not the sort of discussion youāre 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 āclickbaitā.
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 didnāt say you agreed with the plaintiffās 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. Thatās 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 wonāt protect them. If you sell a home remedy that you claim will cure cancer, the First Amendment wonāt protect you. If someone lies about being a doctor and you consent to a physical exam on that basis, the First Amendment wonāt protect them.
Maybe you think the First Amendment allows these particular plaintiffs to deceive potential clients about health care. Well, thatās your opinion. But plenty of legal scholars - and historical precedent - argue otherwise.
Iām saying it probably falls short of the standard and if so it ought to be struck down. If you canāt accept that Iām being sincere when I say thatās my whole fucking point, then I donāt know what else to say.
I donāt 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, itās 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 itās 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 isnāt. Thatās up to a jury to determine. If itās 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 doesnāt mean you throw out the law against the crime.
I canāt imagine how any doctor can and chooses to work under these conditions. I am not in the medical field so maybe itās not relevant but I have had a few times where I flat out refused to keep working for an employer/project because the constraints made failure unavoidable. Walk away. Come to the North where we are always short of doctors.
$99 a night for company rooms? Around here we can get a shitty room, AND a hooker for that price. Not to mention drugs being readily available in the parking lot.
As one in the industry, itās incredibly frustrating. Colleagues have been saying āoh, we get all of these perks and get nice salaries, we donāt need a unionā while others are bucket-crabbing with āyou make big money, why do you need a union?ā, both overlooking the immense amounts of unpaid overtime that are endemic. Then, thereās the push for RTO, which does nothing to benefit employees and would be readily prevented by strong unions.
A lot of companies used to run company towns. Toyota still does, as far as I know. I wouldnāt be surprised if we see a return of that sort of thing with real estate prices getting absurd and companies wanting to drive people back into the office.
Hah, I actually did that when I first started working for a small company.
The co-founder also rented out a house he owned as a duplex.
Actually wasnāt that bad, he charged slightly below market rate, and was pretty attentive. But definitely felt weird and I was happy to move out after a few years. Itās just an unnecessary source of potential drama.
Now my manager lives there, and has for five years.
Some people say a man is made outta blood. A code monkeyās made out of Fritos and crud. Fritos and crud and skin and bone. A back thatās weak and a mind thatās strongā¦
The good that comes from that, from the perspective of the boss-landlord is that if your employee-tenants start getting the idea to strike, you control both their income and their shelter, so they reconsider.
The jokes theyāre referring to are very much a boomer thing as well. The olā ball and chain, that sort of stuff is prevalent. Just take a look at any of the āboomer humourā communities and youāll see what I mean.
Not many of the silent generation posting shit memes to Facebook.
Thereās a reason so much media about the 60ās/70ās portrays hippies and that era of counterculture in general as lazy bums getting high instead of people tired of bullshit. Itās because it was fucking working, and the powers that be didnāt like that one bit and so put the full force of the propaganda machine behind making it into a mockery.
put the full force of the propaganda machine behind making it into a mockery.
Agreed, and Nixon making cannabis illegal was part of that, and probably a pretty crucial move, that gave the police enormous power to disrupt everything the āhippiesā or protestors stood for.
Unfortunately I think itās still working, the search for a more humane society based on humane values kind of ended with the 70ās.
We didnāt fight and win. It was an awkward ruling to begin with otherwise it would have covered drugs and a whole lot of other health related issues. We counted a questionable ruling as a win, high fived and did nothing for 50 fucking years.
Roe vs wade was a bad court decision looking to be overturned. I wish congress has done something knowing it was bad. Countless scotus judges have said it was a bad decision. Even rgb said it was flawed
Iām a republican but I am pro-choice. Yet the party is pushing abortion bans without compromise.
I wonāt vote democrat which means most likely I wonāt vote. Until the republicans want to negotiate on abortion. They wonāt get my vote.
I fully support the right to an abortion for any reason up until a reasonable time frame. I donāt know a single person who supports these crazy bans. I know theyāre out there but theyāre not in the circles I keep.
I agree with you on timeframe, but we donāt really have data that shows a need to limit abortion really so it seems kind of moot. As it turns out, carrying a fetus for 9 months and then merking it at the last minute isnāt a thing women do, and certainly not intentionally.
In Denmark we had a huge debate and lying campaigns by Christians against abortion, similar to what you have had in USA for 50 years now.
After a long struggle by women interest groups, and despite the misinformation by Christians, the Danish parliament finally decided to grant free abortion within 12 weeks of pregnancy in May 1973. So we have 50 year anniversary on the law this year.
In Denmark women won the fight against the extremely religious. But not just the victory of getting it legalized, the support in the population increased tremendously, and it was a huge prestigious loss for Christianity and their right to dictate morality based on religious views instead of reason based on current knowledge.
A poll in 2003 found that a whopping 93% of the population support it. Any talk by extreme Christians to remove it, has all but vanished. They know itās a lost case for them. Now there is talk of relaxing the law, because in some cases itās considered too strict.
As I said, they try to define it that way but for itās tied to religion for most people.
Iām an atheist. I do attend mass but like Dawkins I just like the tradition and ceremony. I fully support abortion and even if I believed in God Iād support abortion.
I believe in the concept of a āsoulā. Not in a paranormal way but there is more to us than just a chemical interaction but it goes away when we die. I do not think itās formed until much later in life. As such, when we are in the womb, we are the potential for more but we are nothing special.
Now I donāt mind some crossover between religion and government. I like having Christmas off. I donāt really celebrate it but itās a nice holiday.
What I donāt like is when we take purely religious concepts and try to ban others behavior because of your sky god. Abortion is an example since some religions allow it and some deny it.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.