2 ms·

No actually I’m arguing that “crowd sourcing law enforcement” isn’t a novel government tactic at all. Argue for or against this law on its merits but it hasn’t

No actually I’m arguing that “crowd sourcing law enforcement” isn’t a novel government tactic at all. Argue for or against this law on its merits but it hasn’t enabled anything that wasn’t already a problem.

danShumway 5y ago
> No actually I’m arguing that “crowd sourcing law enforcement” isn’t a novel government tactic at all Yeah, which is a completely separate conversation. The biggest problem with this bill isn't that it crowdsources law enforcement, it's that in crowdsourcing law enforcement it provides a novel mechanism for passing laws that can't be preemptively challenged by citizens in front of the Supreme Court. That is a novel issue. Citizens reporting people to the police, or even citizens collectively attacking, shunning, or boycotting socially unacceptable behaviors is not new. Citizens having standing under the law to sue each other over unconstitutional laws is a new thing. Cancel culture doesn't give random people standing to claim damages against anyone they want in a courtroom. This law does. > but it hasn’t enabled anything that wasn’t already a problem. So California already gave citizens standing to sue each other over owning any gun? It already allowed citizens to sue each other going out in public without a mask? People can be sued by anyone in the state if they go to church and they're not vaccinated? And it removed limits on the number of lawsuits so that citizens could sue the same companies/people multiple times? Remind me, after Apple refused to decrypt the San Bernadino phone, were they flooded with multiple lawsuits from ordinary citizens that couldn't be dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, where citizens didn't need to prove standing for the lawsuit, and where Apple was barred from collecting attorney fees even if they won? People cancelling each other on Twitter, or submitting tips to law enforcement, or even getting people fired over their political beliefs is not the same thing as the Supreme Court signing off on a legal framework for passing unconstitutional laws.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > It already allowed citizens to sue each other going out in public without a mask? People can be sued by anyone in the state if they go to church and they're not vaccinated? And I'd be surprised if some legislature hasn't already started the process on this. It's more reasonable than the abortion law, because it's about behavior that puts the person bringing the suit into some amount of danger. Any argument that would support the abortion law would support the mask/vaccination law.

danShumway 5y ago

> No actually I’m arguing that “crowd sourcing law enforcement” isn’t a novel government tactic at all Yeah, which is a completely separate conversation. The biggest problem with this bill isn't that it crowdsources law enforcement, it's that in crowdsourcing law enforcement it provides a novel mechanism for passing laws that can't be preemptively challenged by citizens in front of the Supreme Court. That is a novel issue. Citizens reporting people to the police, or even citizens collectively attacking, shunning, or boycotting socially unacceptable behaviors is not new. Citizens having standing under the law to sue each other over unconstitutional laws is a new thing. Cancel culture doesn't give random people standing to claim damages against anyone they want in a courtroom. This law does. > but it hasn’t enabled anything that wasn’t already a problem. So California already gave citizens standing to sue each other over owning any gun? It already allowed citizens to sue each other going out in public without a mask? People can be sued by anyone in the state if they go to church and they're not vaccinated? And it removed limits on the number of lawsuits so that citizens could sue the same companies/people multiple times? Remind me, after Apple refused to decrypt the San Bernadino phone, were they flooded with multiple lawsuits from ordinary citizens that couldn't be dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, where citizens didn't need to prove standing for the lawsuit, and where Apple was barred from collecting attorney fees even if they won? People cancelling each other on Twitter, or submitting tips to law enforcement, or even getting people fired over their political beliefs is not the same thing as the Supreme Court signing off on a legal framework for passing unconstitutional laws.

pessimizer 5y ago
> It already allowed citizens to sue each other going out in public without a mask? People can be sued by anyone in the state if they go to church and they're not vaccinated? And I'd be surprised if some legislature hasn't already started the process on this. It's more reasonable than the abortion law, because it's about behavior that puts the person bringing the suit into some amount of danger. Any argument that would support the abortion law would support the mask/vaccination law.