To be clear, harassment and defamation are crimes in the US as well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can harm people with your speech with impunity. It’s a prohibition on the government from meddling with political speech, especially that of people who are detractors of the government.
I think the issue is that, while a country is certainly allowed to write it’s own laws, the idea that it is deeply fundamentally immoral for the government to prevent someone from saying something (or compel them to say something) is very deeply baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a part.)
So in the same way that a country is perfectly within its sovereign rights to pass a law that women are property or minorities don’t have the right to vote, I can still say that it feels wrong of them to do so.
And I would also decry a country that kicks out a company that chooses to employ women or minorities in violation of such a law, even if that is technically their sovereign right to do so.
Printing Nazi propaganda isn’t illegal in the US.
And I realize this isn’t in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.
It’s the old, “I don’t agree with anything that man says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it,” thing.
I can see both sides on this one I think?
Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?
If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?
Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.
I’m betting 5-4 in favor of throwing this out.
Gorsuch came down hard on Bostock, which makes me think he’d be skeptical of overturning Obergefell (which he wasn’t on the court to rule on originally).
Roberts is married to process well enough that I don’t think he can find it in himself to violate stare decisis on a case he was actually chief justice for, even if he did vote against the first time. Plus a lot has changed since 2015, and the court took a hard swing right. The dude has always kinda been that middle man referee, so I think that’s another drop in the “would shoot this down” bucket.
That only leaves Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, and Barrett. Alito and Thomas will always vote for the craziest possible position, so they’re right out. Kavenaugh and Barrett are more of a coin toss, but I lean towards them having their own, separate dissent if Bostock is any indication (which Kavenaugh dissented on, but not with Alito and Thomas. Barrett had yet to join.)
So my gut is that this isn’t going anywhere. I’d honestly be surprised if the supreme court even took it up.
Here’s the note taking and editors page of awesome-selfhosted. Looks like there are a few contenders in there. DailyTxT looks decent for your use case.
https://awesome-selfhosted.net/tags/note-taking--editors.html
Fair, and if the guy I responded to was saying that this was a grey area due to PP psychosis, I would have just agreed.
But he was making the case that this was a grey area due to the abortion laws forcing her to give birth. That’s a much different stance, and the one I was replying to.
While all that is definitely reasonable, it’s a pretty big leap from “the law prevented me from getting an abortion” to “I’mma just yeet this baby out the window.”
Those ideas are so far apart as to not even remotely justify one another, right?
Like, if someone gets cut off in traffic, and they get mad and mow down a dozen pedestrians, it’d be insane to be like, “Well, you have to understand, he got cut off real bad. Mowing down pedestrians is clearly wrong, but there’s definitely some real grey area there.”
Quick math says that’s about a 19-20% return annually for the 10yrs since 2014.
The average APY of the S&P 500 over the same time period was about 11-12%.
So definitely way outperforming the market, though maybe achievable with one or two good picks on individual stock?
Definitely not a good look regardless.
I think it might be a bit of a bold assumption that everyone who thinks Biden is too old to do an effective job and should step aside is a huge Trump supporter.
There are plenty of people who hate Trump with a passion that thinks Biden isn’t up to the task of winning this election.
Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.
And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.
A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.
Do they have the exact same amount of experience as well?
Like, even if their platforms are the same, they probably have different backgrounds and accomplishments.
But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.
And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.
And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.
It seems counterproductive to pay for tickets to go see a comedian just to protest heckle.
Like, you just gave that man money to yell at him. I’m sure he’s drying his tears with the dollar bills.
I mean, yeah, there was definitely more nuance in the article that I didn’t capture in my ten word summary for sure.
I was mostly just rebutting the guy who was talking about tax exemptions without copy pasting the whole article, lol.
Yeah, I didn’t bother to mention it because it was unrelated to the BLM stuff, but it really sucks for them. Definitely a lot going wrong at once. And it sounds like there’s a pretty deep need where they’re at too.
Did you read the article? They haven’t lost their tax exempt status.
They were getting large donations from the police department, and the police department stopped donating because of their support for BLM.
I mean, you could project based on the casualties already incurred I suppose.
Looks to be about 65k Americans military members died in the Pacific theater, and we were still a long ways off from reaching mainland Japan, and the fighting was only gonna get worse the farther in we got. And that’s just Americans. It doesn’t count the Japanese casualties, which by all accounts dwarfed the American numbers.
200k civilians were killed in the atomic bombings. Now, it’s worth noting that those are civilian deaths, which one can argue have a higher moral weight than combatant deaths.
So, all that said, in plain numbers I think it’s an extremely safe bet that far more than 200k more people would have died in a blockade/land invasion scenario. But, you could argue that it’s apples to oranges since the bombs were on civilian targets.
It’s also worth noting to that the 200k dead to resolve the war were all non-American, which doesn’t make it any less of a tragic loss of life, but matters in the “political” sense. If you are at war, and you are handed a solution that can end the war without sending any more of your own people to die, do you as the leader have a moral responsibility to do it? Like, if you have the choice in front of you to either bomb a civilian target, killing 200k “enemy” civilians but ending the war, or sending even 100k American’s to their deaths, knowing that you are the one responsible for making sure those men and women get home safe, can you in good conscience choose the latter? Is it better to choose the latter? I wouldn’t want to have to make that decision, but I also am loathe to second guess the decision of the person who has to make it.
Well, not every metric. I bet the computers generated them way faster, lol. :P