3 ms·

In many countries, it took multiple attempts to get gay marriage legalised. Having a double jeopardy type block for repeated attempts at passing laws would prev

In many countries, it took multiple attempts to get gay marriage legalised. Having a double jeopardy type block for repeated attempts at passing laws would prevent social changes being captured in law. Also it would be easy to weaponised by proposing something that doesn’t have enough support now so that it can never be passed in the future.

somenameforme 1y ago
You're fighting a strawman there I think. He said nothing about it then never being possible to propose a law. A reasonable cool-down period to ensure politicians can't simply exploit the fatigue of the public would be reasonable - perhaps 10 or 12 years.
- mschild 1y ago
  He did make a reference to the double jeopardy law in the US though which, if I'm not mistaken, explicitly prohibits exactly that type of behaviour.
- digitalPhonix 1y ago
  That's not double jeopardy then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy The clause in the US constitution specifically has no time limits and it looks like it's the same for all the countries listed on wiki.
- gruez 1y ago
  >He said nothing about it then never being possible to propose a law. A reasonable cool-down period to ensure politicians can't simply exploit the fatigue of the public would be reasonable - perhaps 10 or 12 years. So if gay marriage or weed legalization was defeated in 2015 you shouldn't be able to have a go at it until 2025? Or if YIMBY zoning reforms or AI regulation were defeated in 2025 you shouldn't be able try again until 2035?
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    Yes, even for things you support.
    - labcomputer 1y ago
      That sounds like a terrible idea. Suppose a malicious actor wants to prevent something you support. They can simply bring a bill with a poison pill. To use the prior example: They could create a criminal reform act which makes weed legal, but also (by total coincidence) makes child rape legal. Nobody will vote for the pedophiles, so now they have successfully prevented weed legalization for at least 10 years, and they can use a different poison pill next time. Before you say "well, bring it back without the child rape part", see my other comment in this thread about deciding whether two bills are the same.
      - buu700 1y ago
        I understand where this "exponential backoff" idea is coming from as much as anyone. Chat Control would have been an effective continent-wide ban on my own startup, Cyph, and it's been dismaying to watch the consistent background erosion of civil liberties due to the world's inability to maintain a constant state of SOPA-style blackouts and and similar massive grassroots influence campaigns. That being said, I agree that it probably isn't the most practical approach. It feels too vague to have any teeth, and if we were to collectively spend political capital to implement something like that, we may as well be more direct and push to constitutionally enshrine digital bills of rights that nip all this nonsense in the bud for good. No more E2EE bans, VPN bans, mandatory backdoors, age verification laws, undermining of Section-230-style protections, or criminalization of online speech — throw it all out, and roadblock any such future attempts.
    - pqtyw 1y ago
      Maybe we should also ban all parties that don't win the election for the next 10-15 years? Makes as much sense...
    - michaelt 1y ago
      Should an outgoing Republican legislature be allowed to deliberately introduce a gun control bill, vote not to pass it, and thereby block an incoming Democratic legislature from passing gun control for their entire term?
- mattlutze 1y ago
  That would be a boon to the conservative movements, for sure. And also ensure that almost nothing gets done unless it is extremely populist.
- pqtyw 1y ago
  >perhaps 10 or 12 years So if party A votes down proposal X and the next election party B that publicly supports it wins they shouldn't be allowed to propose that law? Logical conclusion would be for the governing party to get some stooge to propose all the policies they oppose, get them far enough to the voting stage and reject them. Now your opponents can't do anything even if you lose the next election... Of course doesn't really apply to pseudo-democratic institutions like the EU..
petre 1y ago
That's brilliant. Chat control discussions should totally get derrailed to gay marriage and weed legalization.
- digitalPhonix 1y ago
  Heh? Are examples not used in your culture?

somenameforme 1y ago

You're fighting a strawman there I think. He said nothing about it then never being possible to propose a law. A reasonable cool-down period to ensure politicians can't simply exploit the fatigue of the public would be reasonable - perhaps 10 or 12 years.

mschild 1y ago
He did make a reference to the double jeopardy law in the US though which, if I'm not mistaken, explicitly prohibits exactly that type of behaviour.
digitalPhonix 1y ago
That's not double jeopardy then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy The clause in the US constitution specifically has no time limits and it looks like it's the same for all the countries listed on wiki.
gruez 1y ago
>He said nothing about it then never being possible to propose a law. A reasonable cool-down period to ensure politicians can't simply exploit the fatigue of the public would be reasonable - perhaps 10 or 12 years. So if gay marriage or weed legalization was defeated in 2015 you shouldn't be able to have a go at it until 2025? Or if YIMBY zoning reforms or AI regulation were defeated in 2025 you shouldn't be able try again until 2035?
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Yes, even for things you support.
  - labcomputer 1y ago
    That sounds like a terrible idea. Suppose a malicious actor wants to prevent something you support. They can simply bring a bill with a poison pill. To use the prior example: They could create a criminal reform act which makes weed legal, but also (by total coincidence) makes child rape legal. Nobody will vote for the pedophiles, so now they have successfully prevented weed legalization for at least 10 years, and they can use a different poison pill next time. Before you say "well, bring it back without the child rape part", see my other comment in this thread about deciding whether two bills are the same.
    - buu700 1y ago
      I understand where this "exponential backoff" idea is coming from as much as anyone. Chat Control would have been an effective continent-wide ban on my own startup, Cyph, and it's been dismaying to watch the consistent background erosion of civil liberties due to the world's inability to maintain a constant state of SOPA-style blackouts and and similar massive grassroots influence campaigns. That being said, I agree that it probably isn't the most practical approach. It feels too vague to have any teeth, and if we were to collectively spend political capital to implement something like that, we may as well be more direct and push to constitutionally enshrine digital bills of rights that nip all this nonsense in the bud for good. No more E2EE bans, VPN bans, mandatory backdoors, age verification laws, undermining of Section-230-style protections, or criminalization of online speech — throw it all out, and roadblock any such future attempts.
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    Maybe we should also ban all parties that don't win the election for the next 10-15 years? Makes as much sense...
  - michaelt 1y ago
    Should an outgoing Republican legislature be allowed to deliberately introduce a gun control bill, vote not to pass it, and thereby block an incoming Democratic legislature from passing gun control for their entire term?
mattlutze 1y ago
That would be a boon to the conservative movements, for sure. And also ensure that almost nothing gets done unless it is extremely populist.
pqtyw 1y ago
>perhaps 10 or 12 years So if party A votes down proposal X and the next election party B that publicly supports it wins they shouldn't be allowed to propose that law? Logical conclusion would be for the governing party to get some stooge to propose all the policies they oppose, get them far enough to the voting stage and reject them. Now your opponents can't do anything even if you lose the next election... Of course doesn't really apply to pseudo-democratic institutions like the EU..

petre 1y ago

That's brilliant. Chat control discussions should totally get derrailed to gay marriage and weed legalization.

digitalPhonix 1y ago
Heh? Are examples not used in your culture?