5 ms·

> Privacy does not end at state lines and Americans deserve better than a patchwork of different and conflicting state laws. Couldn't you replace "privacy" her

by rhcom2 5y ago

> Privacy does not end at state lines and Americans deserve better than a patchwork of different and conflicting state laws. Couldn't you replace "privacy" here with guns or healthcare or nearly any other national issue. edit: >SEC. 111. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION. (a) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.— A covered entity may not, through the collection use or sharing of personal information, discriminate against or make an economic opportunity unavailable on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, political ideology, or disability of a persons or class of persons. Notice they added something to the normal "protected classes" in the US.

rglover 5y ago
Which is a good addition.
- outside1234 5y ago
  The next step though is to say that Trump is being "persecuted" because he incited an attempted coup, which will be called "political expression"
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Why. The existing ones were un-changable aspects about you that you can't control, and are born into. You can change the addition with the wind, and its a thing you grow into and learn and mold. How do you even define something as political? Eg. Saying X group of people should stop being killed by police is, to some, a validation of humanity, but to others a political issue to be argued at the ballot box? What about marriage, which is based in laws, but some say should be a religious issue? Is that protected? What about hate speech? Thats very much bad, until someone claims they're just politically conservative, so now its protected?
  - jackorange 5y ago
    >The existing ones were un-changable aspects about you that you can't control, and are born into. That's not how westerners feel about gender any more.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      Its funny because gender isn't on that list :) Sex is on that list. And these westerners you think of will tell you sex and gender is different.
    - pgcj_poster 5y ago
      What are you talking about? Trans people? As far as I know, most trans people, including me, feel that they were born trans, or at least couldn't have chosen not to be trans. When someone transitions, they're not choosing to change their gender—they're changing their appearance to match the gender they already felt they were.
  - olyjohn 5y ago
    Also, does this end up protecting religious extremist groups? Or terrorist groups? I thought the definition of terrorism was rooted in politics.
    - rglover 5y ago
      It should if it's not suggesting action (e.g., posting "Death to America" should be allowed but "Death to America, Let's Go Bomb an Arby's" should not).
    - 5560675260 5y ago
      Is that actually a problem? Members of terrorist group will be imprisoned for their terrorist acts, drone stricken (together with a nearby wedding), put on "do not work with them list" or all of the above. In summary: they will not be able to be your customers.
      - vineyardmike 5y ago
        > Members of terrorist group will be imprisoned for their terrorist acts, drone stricken What about terrorist recruiters? People in the US who try to garner support of others but don't actually do the terrorism.
  - rglover 5y ago
    > The existing ones were un-changable aspects about you that you can't control, and are born into. How and when you got there is irrelevant. I'd want the same protections for people I vehemently disagree with because it's the right thing to do (and aligned with the consitution). > How do you even define something as political? I imagine this will be made more concrete but based on some political affiliation (party registration). > What about marriage, which is based in laws, but some say should be a religious issue? Is that protected? Strawman...? > What about hate speech? You can choose to ignore and disregard (like most people do) these types. They're fringe for a reason. In cases of actual threats taking place (as opposed to things that don't suggest action being said that people don't like), there is already a legal framework in place for handling that.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      > I'd want the same protections for people I vehemently disagree with because it's the right thing to do (and aligned with the consitution). Nah. I disagree. In Germany, its illegal to be nazi-sympathizing. As someone who disagrees with Nazi ideology, I think that sort of law (and societal environment) is healthy and don't think we should protect that. If that happened in the US then some small group would still be waving the nazi flag as a source of pride the way that some still wave the confederate flag. I don't see a need to protect such extreme awfulness. > I imagine this will be made more concrete but based on some political affiliation (party registration). So any topic that is related to a party platform is political? If Bernie keeps tweeting about amazon is amazonian discussions now protected political speech? > Strawman...? No its a very real topic. "Gay" marriage is an important issue in many countries. Its becoming less relevant in the political sphere of the US lately, but its not crazy to imagine republicans trying to re-litigate the issue. Gay people don't think of marriage as particularly political, its just a right they expect to continue having. Religious zealots want to strip that right away, and litigate it in courts. Discussions of the right to marry are classified by some as political discussions. This is a real topic real people actively discuss and does come up in political discourse. > as opposed to things that don't suggest action being said that people don't like Hate speech is not just speech "that people don't like". Also why should platforms be forced to host speech that is hateful? As is often mentioned here on HN, you have a right to speak, not to an audience. Why should platforms not be able to avoid or dispell people that say things that no one wants to hear?
  - FunHearing3443 5y ago
    Religion is something that you can control.
- moosey 5y ago
  Political positions can be literally any point of view. Will I be allowed to have a gun free workplace, for example, when I am required to hire people who believe in sovereign citizen movements? Will we be forced to permit people to carry guns in workplaces because of their political positions and values? LGBT rights can also be defined as a political position. Same with being pro-Union. Will we be protecting doctors who believe in holistic medicine at major hospitals, and nurses who discourage all vaccinations? The limit of what is an opinion vs a political opinion does not exist. Therefore this protects everyone and nobody at the same time.
mminer237 5y ago
Few people sell guns or healthcare across the nation. Those are typically local businesses which only have to worry about local laws. An Internet business typically covers the whole country at least and this could easily be subject to a ton of different standards if Congress doesn't standardize it.
- rhcom2 5y ago
  I think that's fair if you only look at this from a business perspective, but clearly those things have great effects across state lines even if the business is usually intrastate. (Although a good amount of gun purchases are done on the internet and the only local businesses is the FLL doing the receiving)
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  I think you have causality wrong here. There aren’t national businesses for guns or healthcare because regulatory burdens make that hard to impossible.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
outside1234 5y ago
Or abortion, for example? "Oh no, we want states level laws for that."

by rhcom2 5y ago

rglover 5y ago

Which is a good addition.

outside1234 5y ago
The next step though is to say that Trump is being "persecuted" because he incited an attempted coup, which will be called "political expression"
vineyardmike 5y ago
Why. The existing ones were un-changable aspects about you that you can't control, and are born into. You can change the addition with the wind, and its a thing you grow into and learn and mold. How do you even define something as political? Eg. Saying X group of people should stop being killed by police is, to some, a validation of humanity, but to others a political issue to be argued at the ballot box? What about marriage, which is based in laws, but some say should be a religious issue? Is that protected? What about hate speech? Thats very much bad, until someone claims they're just politically conservative, so now its protected?
- jackorange 5y ago
  >The existing ones were un-changable aspects about you that you can't control, and are born into. That's not how westerners feel about gender any more.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    Its funny because gender isn't on that list :) Sex is on that list. And these westerners you think of will tell you sex and gender is different.
  - pgcj_poster 5y ago
    What are you talking about? Trans people? As far as I know, most trans people, including me, feel that they were born trans, or at least couldn't have chosen not to be trans. When someone transitions, they're not choosing to change their gender—they're changing their appearance to match the gender they already felt they were.
- olyjohn 5y ago
  Also, does this end up protecting religious extremist groups? Or terrorist groups? I thought the definition of terrorism was rooted in politics.
  - rglover 5y ago
    It should if it's not suggesting action (e.g., posting "Death to America" should be allowed but "Death to America, Let's Go Bomb an Arby's" should not).
  - 5560675260 5y ago
    Is that actually a problem? Members of terrorist group will be imprisoned for their terrorist acts, drone stricken (together with a nearby wedding), put on "do not work with them list" or all of the above. In summary: they will not be able to be your customers.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      > Members of terrorist group will be imprisoned for their terrorist acts, drone stricken What about terrorist recruiters? People in the US who try to garner support of others but don't actually do the terrorism.
- rglover 5y ago
  > The existing ones were un-changable aspects about you that you can't control, and are born into. How and when you got there is irrelevant. I'd want the same protections for people I vehemently disagree with because it's the right thing to do (and aligned with the consitution). > How do you even define something as political? I imagine this will be made more concrete but based on some political affiliation (party registration). > What about marriage, which is based in laws, but some say should be a religious issue? Is that protected? Strawman...? > What about hate speech? You can choose to ignore and disregard (like most people do) these types. They're fringe for a reason. In cases of actual threats taking place (as opposed to things that don't suggest action being said that people don't like), there is already a legal framework in place for handling that.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > I'd want the same protections for people I vehemently disagree with because it's the right thing to do (and aligned with the consitution). Nah. I disagree. In Germany, its illegal to be nazi-sympathizing. As someone who disagrees with Nazi ideology, I think that sort of law (and societal environment) is healthy and don't think we should protect that. If that happened in the US then some small group would still be waving the nazi flag as a source of pride the way that some still wave the confederate flag. I don't see a need to protect such extreme awfulness. > I imagine this will be made more concrete but based on some political affiliation (party registration). So any topic that is related to a party platform is political? If Bernie keeps tweeting about amazon is amazonian discussions now protected political speech? > Strawman...? No its a very real topic. "Gay" marriage is an important issue in many countries. Its becoming less relevant in the political sphere of the US lately, but its not crazy to imagine republicans trying to re-litigate the issue. Gay people don't think of marriage as particularly political, its just a right they expect to continue having. Religious zealots want to strip that right away, and litigate it in courts. Discussions of the right to marry are classified by some as political discussions. This is a real topic real people actively discuss and does come up in political discourse. > as opposed to things that don't suggest action being said that people don't like Hate speech is not just speech "that people don't like". Also why should platforms be forced to host speech that is hateful? As is often mentioned here on HN, you have a right to speak, not to an audience. Why should platforms not be able to avoid or dispell people that say things that no one wants to hear?
- FunHearing3443 5y ago
  Religion is something that you can control.
moosey 5y ago
Political positions can be literally any point of view. Will I be allowed to have a gun free workplace, for example, when I am required to hire people who believe in sovereign citizen movements? Will we be forced to permit people to carry guns in workplaces because of their political positions and values? LGBT rights can also be defined as a political position. Same with being pro-Union. Will we be protecting doctors who believe in holistic medicine at major hospitals, and nurses who discourage all vaccinations? The limit of what is an opinion vs a political opinion does not exist. Therefore this protects everyone and nobody at the same time.

mminer237 5y ago

Few people sell guns or healthcare across the nation. Those are typically local businesses which only have to worry about local laws. An Internet business typically covers the whole country at least and this could easily be subject to a ton of different standards if Congress doesn't standardize it.

rhcom2 5y ago
I think that's fair if you only look at this from a business perspective, but clearly those things have great effects across state lines even if the business is usually intrastate. (Although a good amount of gun purchases are done on the internet and the only local businesses is the FLL doing the receiving)
kasey_junk 5y ago
I think you have causality wrong here. There aren’t national businesses for guns or healthcare because regulatory burdens make that hard to impossible.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

outside1234 5y ago

Or abortion, for example? "Oh no, we want states level laws for that."