What privilege applies here?
charonn0
joined 1 year ago
The Republican push for hand-counted ballots has continued to emerge as the party criticizes a number of electronic voting systems, linking them to claims that the 2020 election was stolen via widespread voter fraud.
One of the major proponents of paper ballots is Trump supporter and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has been an outspoken critic of electronic voting machines. He has said he wants U.S. elections to be held using paper ballots.
Broken clock syndrome. You don't have to be a MAGAt to think that paper ballots are more secure than digital ones.
"Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm" (CPC 245(a)(1)) can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the exact circumstances.
I read the bill.
The question is irrelevant to whether this bill is a good idea.
It's become too easy. It no longer involves actually standing on the floor of the senate and talking. It's a purely procedural thing now. OP should have said "bring back the talking filibuster".
Musk's companies are already based in the US. The issues you raise, however valid, are not really relevant to a discussion of this bill.
I think there's definitely a case to be made that recommendation algorithms, etc. constitute editorial control and thus the platform may not be immune to lawsuits based on user posts.
It was a Democrat caught stating the obvious, not a Republican caught admitting the obvious.
Anyone else feel like the article really didn't want to mention that part?
We’ve been covering many stories about a potential TikTok ban, including how unconstitutional it clearly is, how pointless it clearly is, and how even those who back it don’t seem to have a good explanation of why, beyond some vague handwaving about “China.”
The bill isn't nearly as bad as they want you to think. It bans companies in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from operating social media apps in US markets, forcing them to sell if they already do. These four countries are already restricted from accessing sensitive parts of the US economy, with forced sale being a legal option. Really, the only novel part of the bill is applying these kinds of restrictions to software.
And the bill doesn't actually punish or restrain users' speech. It does restrain the social media company's speech, but that may not be enough to overturn the bill on 1st amendment grounds. If you understand that social media exists to collect vast amounts of user data then you must also understand how the government has a legitimate interest in keeping that data out of an adversary's hands. The only real question is whether the government has a compelling interest, because that's the standard that a court would apply to this bill. And I daresay it might.
I don't think jail is on the table because it's a civil case. Instead, they would begin to seize property and assets.
Isn't she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the "prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her" part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?