4 ms·

Except only for people and states that wanted/voted it to existence?

by _8j50 3y ago

clipsy 3y ago
> Except only for people and states that wanted/voted it to existence? "[O]nly for people" is horseshit; in addition to the fact that the vast majority of people did not vote on these laws -- to the best of my knowledge, none of them were passed by popular referendum -- these laws still bind all of the people who did not vote for the representatives who passed them. A country or state in which a 51% majority imposes draconian surveillance is nothing to be proud of.
- _8j50 3y ago
  That's how representative democracy works. The legislators were elected in and can be replaced by people who will repeal undesirable laws.
  - clipsy 3y ago
    So government censorship and surveillance are perfectly ok in your opinion, just as long as 51% of elected representatives are supportive? Cool, thanks. No further discussion necessary.
    - _8j50 3y ago
      Yeah, so long as it is not my state and I have plenty of states to move to without that problem. I can tolerate others wishes so long as it doesn't infringe on the minority's rights. The government has always had the right to censor content deemed harmful.
      - clipsy 3y ago
        > I can tolerate others wishes so long as it doesn't infringe on the minority's rights. Well, you're fine with infringing on the minority's rights in this case, since it obviously infringes on them. Unless of course you think the government should take on the role of censoring what the minority sees. > The government has always had the right to censor content deemed harmful. First: does it? [0] Second: this is nothing more than the usual "just think of the children!" excuse for banning legal speech, a standard tool of censors. [0]: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-various-federal-departments-from-encouraging-social-media-platforms-to-delete-content/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-...
        _8j50 3y ago
        Wants and rights are different things. There is a reason TV companies get fined when someone says a "bad" word. Obscenity has always been censored too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law By definition, the minority in terms of voting will see policies they dislike enacted but consuming any content you want has never been a right. For example porn of minors is one of the worst crimes a person can committ anywhere, even just posession. > Second: this is nothing more than the usual "just think of the children!" excuse for banning legal speech, a standard tool of censors. Maybe but I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the law. I am simply accepting that not only is it legitimate but states doing things the rest of the states abhor like this is a good thing and only benefits the union of states. A timely discussion given the date of our discussion. America has always been a union of states that disagree on many things like this and it is because I like and celebrate america that I accept and tolerate legitimate excercise of legislative authority by states. I think what you want is to support passing of federal laws that prevent states from censoring porn, and if that law passes I will accept it's legitimacy.
        Brybry 3y ago
        > There is a reason TV companies get fined when someone says a "bad" word. This is actually really complicated and possibly (likely?) unconstitutional. They basically can do limited censorship because of FCC v. Pacifica [1] But that failed when applied to the internet. [2] And it even fails sometimes when applied to TV. [3] A different court in the future may very well overturn FCC v. Pacifica without anyone passing a new Federal law. And States already are almost certainly prevented from outright censoring porn because: a) legal porn has already been ruled *not* to be federally obscene via Miller test. [4] They have to use the 'actionable indecency' bit from Pacifica to censor (ie. these ID laws) otherwise first amendment protected material. [6] b) the first amendment is incorporated and thus applies to the States [5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCC_v._Pacifica_F... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Fox_Television_Stations,_Inc._(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Fox_Television_Stations... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actionable_indecency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actionable_indecency
  - Brybry 3y ago
    It works until you can't replace legislators because of gerrymandering or other legal barriers. For example, if you look at registered voters in Louisiana 38.9% are democrats, 33.7% are republicans, and 27.3% are independent (and only ~64% of the independent are white). [1] Yet it's a solid red state where democrats only really have a chance at electing governors. And then you have situations like making it illegal for the people you don't want to vote. 10.6% of voting age Mississippians can't legally vote. 16% of Black voting age Mississippians [2] [1] https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Registration_Statistics/statewide/2023_0701_sta_comb.pdf https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Registration_Stat... [2] https://mississippitoday.org/2020/10/19/study-11-of-all-mississippians-16-of-black-mississippians-cant-vote-because-of-felony-convictions/ https://mississippitoday.org/2020/10/19/study-11-of-all-miss...
    - _8j50 3y ago
      Then let's talk about fixing those issues instead of making a fuss about valid legislature. Or violent revolution.

Except only for people and states that wanted/voted it to existence?

by _8j50 3y ago

Except only for people and states that wanted/voted it to existence?

> Except only for people and states that wanted/voted it to existence? "[O]nly for people" is horseshit; in addition to the fact that the vast majority of people did not vote on these laws -- to the best of my knowledge, none of them were passed by popular referendum -- these laws still bind all of the people who did not vote for the representatives who passed them. A country or state in which a 51% majority imposes draconian surveillance is nothing to be proud of.

_8j50 3y ago
That's how representative democracy works. The legislators were elected in and can be replaced by people who will repeal undesirable laws.
- clipsy 3y ago
  So government censorship and surveillance are perfectly ok in your opinion, just as long as 51% of elected representatives are supportive? Cool, thanks. No further discussion necessary.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Yeah, so long as it is not my state and I have plenty of states to move to without that problem. I can tolerate others wishes so long as it doesn't infringe on the minority's rights. The government has always had the right to censor content deemed harmful.
    - clipsy 3y ago
      > I can tolerate others wishes so long as it doesn't infringe on the minority's rights. Well, you're fine with infringing on the minority's rights in this case, since it obviously infringes on them. Unless of course you think the government should take on the role of censoring what the minority sees. > The government has always had the right to censor content deemed harmful. First: does it? [0] Second: this is nothing more than the usual "just think of the children!" excuse for banning legal speech, a standard tool of censors. [0]: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-various-federal-departments-from-encouraging-social-media-platforms-to-delete-content/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-...
      - _8j50 3y ago
        Wants and rights are different things. There is a reason TV companies get fined when someone says a "bad" word. Obscenity has always been censored too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law By definition, the minority in terms of voting will see policies they dislike enacted but consuming any content you want has never been a right. For example porn of minors is one of the worst crimes a person can committ anywhere, even just posession. > Second: this is nothing more than the usual "just think of the children!" excuse for banning legal speech, a standard tool of censors. Maybe but I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the law. I am simply accepting that not only is it legitimate but states doing things the rest of the states abhor like this is a good thing and only benefits the union of states. A timely discussion given the date of our discussion. America has always been a union of states that disagree on many things like this and it is because I like and celebrate america that I accept and tolerate legitimate excercise of legislative authority by states. I think what you want is to support passing of federal laws that prevent states from censoring porn, and if that law passes I will accept it's legitimacy.
        Brybry 3y ago
        > There is a reason TV companies get fined when someone says a "bad" word. This is actually really complicated and possibly (likely?) unconstitutional. They basically can do limited censorship because of FCC v. Pacifica [1] But that failed when applied to the internet. [2] And it even fails sometimes when applied to TV. [3] A different court in the future may very well overturn FCC v. Pacifica without anyone passing a new Federal law. And States already are almost certainly prevented from outright censoring porn because: a) legal porn has already been ruled *not* to be federally obscene via Miller test. [4] They have to use the 'actionable indecency' bit from Pacifica to censor (ie. these ID laws) otherwise first amendment protected material. [6] b) the first amendment is incorporated and thus applies to the States [5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCC_v._Pacifica_F... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Fox_Television_Stations,_Inc._(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Fox_Television_Stations... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actionable_indecency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actionable_indecency
- Brybry 3y ago
  It works until you can't replace legislators because of gerrymandering or other legal barriers. For example, if you look at registered voters in Louisiana 38.9% are democrats, 33.7% are republicans, and 27.3% are independent (and only ~64% of the independent are white). [1] Yet it's a solid red state where democrats only really have a chance at electing governors. And then you have situations like making it illegal for the people you don't want to vote. 10.6% of voting age Mississippians can't legally vote. 16% of Black voting age Mississippians [2] [1] https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Registration_Statistics/statewide/2023_0701_sta_comb.pdf https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Registration_Stat... [2] https://mississippitoday.org/2020/10/19/study-11-of-all-mississippians-16-of-black-mississippians-cant-vote-because-of-felony-convictions/ https://mississippitoday.org/2020/10/19/study-11-of-all-miss...
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Then let's talk about fixing those issues instead of making a fuss about valid legislature. Or violent revolution.