3 ms·

> I think it's pretty messed up that Californians had their rights suppressed and chilled so that Newsom could score political points Their rights were never c

by smt88 4y ago

> I think it's pretty messed up that Californians had their rights suppressed and chilled so that Newsom could score political points Their rights were never chilled. It didn't affect consumers at all, and the law was never enforced before it was (swiftly) struck down. The law didn't harm anyone. Texas's law, on the other hand, is actively harming people now, and this harmless California law is an attempt to help them (and fix a potential loophole in the Constitution).

Rebelgecko 4y ago
>Their rights were never chilled. It didn't affect consumers at all, and the law was never enforced before it was (swiftly) struck down. The law didn't harm anyone. I don't see how you can say that the right was never chilled, as far as I know there's no way to determine how many lawsuits weren't filed because the potential plaintiffs and their lawyers were afraid of losing their homes due to the fee shifting provision, even if they filed a successful lawsuit. On top of the difficulty of proving a negative, it turns out there actually are instances of people whose rights are being harmed by this law. There are quite a few court cases that were put on hold while the constitutionality of this part of the law was determined. When it comes to civil rights, I'm in the camp of "a right delayed is a right denied". Every single person whose civil rights lawsuit was put on hold or stayed pending the outcome of this ruling was harmed by it. On top of that, there's clear evidence that 1021.11 was used to harm people. The judge calls some of these instances out in his ruling (e.g. the Abrera and Defense Distributed cases).
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Just to add on to my now-uneditable comment, Junior Sports Magazine just filed their freedom of speech lawsuit yesterday because they were waiting for the outcome of Miller v Bonta II. IMO that's another clear instance of chilling 1st amendment rights.

by smt88 4y ago

Rebelgecko 4y ago

>Their rights were never chilled. It didn't affect consumers at all, and the law was never enforced before it was (swiftly) struck down. The law didn't harm anyone. I don't see how you can say that the right was never chilled, as far as I know there's no way to determine how many lawsuits weren't filed because the potential plaintiffs and their lawyers were afraid of losing their homes due to the fee shifting provision, even if they filed a successful lawsuit. On top of the difficulty of proving a negative, it turns out there actually are instances of people whose rights are being harmed by this law. There are quite a few court cases that were put on hold while the constitutionality of this part of the law was determined. When it comes to civil rights, I'm in the camp of "a right delayed is a right denied". Every single person whose civil rights lawsuit was put on hold or stayed pending the outcome of this ruling was harmed by it. On top of that, there's clear evidence that 1021.11 was used to harm people. The judge calls some of these instances out in his ruling (e.g. the Abrera and Defense Distributed cases).

Rebelgecko 4y ago

Just to add on to my now-uneditable comment, Junior Sports Magazine just filed their freedom of speech lawsuit yesterday because they were waiting for the outcome of Miller v Bonta II. IMO that's another clear instance of chilling 1st amendment rights.