The One True Politics Thread
10-13-2021, 01:33 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 538
Total Cats: 64
This particular graph seems pretty "in the middle" for numbers I've seen relative to nationwide polls, and included administrators and district leadership as well. The associated article was written back in 2017, and represents the 2016 election. Break those numbers down a little further based on who they voted for, and most of the self-identified educational "moderates" are actually left leaning, putting conservatives at a "disadvantage" of roughly 2:1 in an educational setting. While I don't have the numbers to back it up, I'm betting that a much higher percentage of teachers nearing retirement age account for a larger percentage of conservatives, skewing the numbers more towards liberal ideologies as younger teachers come up in the education workforce.
I have a 15 year old daughter who I removed from public school at age 13 and went to a homeschool curriculum. She attended school in a large, predominantly democratic city in North Carolina. I won't go so far as to say there was "indoctrination", but the culture, from student body to administration, was very left leaning. She and I often have discussions about politics and religion, and the points of views and how the facts were presented by teachers based on her descriptions were assuredly left of center. However, the "wokeness" of the student population was staggering - so much so, that my preadolescent daughter identified briefly as a "lesbian" despite being open to us about having no romantic feelings or interest towards either sex at the time, but took on a "girlfriend" based on pressures from various classmates to identify as gay or be excluded from her friend group. Once she was tired of the charade and "broke up," she was bullied incessantly by the other girls in her class to the point where she'd come home in tears every day. Once homeschooled, her real personality shines through, stress levels became virtually nonexistent, and our discussions on politics revealed that she falls much closer to a true middle ground than the group think on either side of the spectrum. I can only imagine that this may be a bigger issue in states which are notably less conservative than North Carolina.
Reply
1
1
10-13-2021, 02:16 PM
#43
Retired Mech Design Engr
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seneca, SC
Posts: 5,009
Total Cats: 857
I actually kind of disagree here.
Hope is an emotion. And for those of a certain political persuasion, feelings and emotions are the most important thing.
This is how we get the sort of blind image-consciousness which drives a state to essentially mandate increased poverty and unemployment, in order to project the image of being progressive and forward-thinking.
If making people feel like you're doing "the right thing" is how you measure success, then hope is most certainly a policy.
I mean, it was literally a campaign platform in the 2008 presidential election.
Hope is an emotion. And for those of a certain political persuasion, feelings and emotions are the most important thing.
This is how we get the sort of blind image-consciousness which drives a state to essentially mandate increased poverty and unemployment, in order to project the image of being progressive and forward-thinking.
If making people feel like you're doing "the right thing" is how you measure success, then hope is most certainly a policy.
I mean, it was literally a campaign platform in the 2008 presidential election.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2021, 01:11 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canberra, sort of
Posts: 1,090
Total Cats: 184
You're right, hope is not a policy. I was not expressing or recommending 'hope'.. I was reflecting an observed phenomena in modern industrialised societies of adaptation, innovation and improvement. As I am not an observer of California I'll leave other to comment on how that happens there.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2021, 07:03 PM
#46
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,035
Total Cats: 6,601
Here's another interesting one...
Remember a few years back, when a baker in Colorado was compelled by law to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple, despite the fact that he personally objected to homosexual marriage on religious grounds?
Well, that was fine. It's ok to use government to force businesses to act in a certain way when doing so protects the perceived rights of someone else.
Except that now it isn't. A lot of folks are getting pretty riled up about a bill which was recently signed into law in Texas, House Bill 20.
What does HB 20 do? Well, it forces social media platforms which do business in Texas not to censor the speech of their users.
And this, according to some (as seen in the article below) is a bad thing, because people might be able to say things which are hurtful, or even (gasp)... wrong!
I honestly find it pretty interesting how they are using the First Amendment itself as a tool to argue in favor of the right to censor. The argument isn't technically incorrect from a purely legal perspective, and I gotta admit that I admire the creativity.
1:30 AM on Oct 17, 2021
The First Amendment protects us from an overreaching government dictating what we can say and where. But last month, Texas ignored the First Amendment’s limits on government when Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 20 into law.
Presented as a conservative anti-bias law by its supporters, the unconstitutional statute is anything but conservative as it empowers the government to control speech in ways prohibited by the First Amendment.
Texas is now following in the footsteps of Florida in a misguided crusade against social media even if it’s at the expense of the Constitution and free speech. Both Abbott and Gov. Ron DeSantis claim to be defending free speech, but both are putting free speech in danger by trying to get the government involved in online expression.
Just as we sued Florida in May to protect the First Amendment, NetChoice similarly sued Texas last month over HB 20. Citing First Amendment and other constitutional violations, we strongly believe it’s important to protect constitutional freedoms and the safety of American internet users, consumers and small businesses. And just like in Florida, where a federal court enjoined the state from enforcing its unconstitutional law, we expect the same in Texas.
Contrary to the perspective of tech’s critics, removing content from the internet is not some dastardly attempt to censor conservative voices. Content moderation is a feature at the crux of what makes social media useful.
If a website hosts every piece of user-generated content thrown its way, the internet would be saturated with awful but lawful content — spam, pornography, hate speech, misinformation, graphic images and so on. That’s why online services work to protect our online communities, including parents, Republicans and Democrats alike, from the spread of harmful and potentially dangerous content.
If allowed to take effect, HB 20 will ruin much of the internet. It would require our favorite services to host and promote the hateful and harmful screeds of bad actors that today they remove and restrict. Additionally, by telling social media sites they have to host all speech, even if user posts break their service’s rules, HB 20 undermines the First Amendment by using government coercion to compel speech.
Just as delis, diners and dive bars can kick out patrons for violating their policies, digital platforms are allowed to enforce their own rules too. The First Amendment ensures that you, me and just about every business we interact with can make our own decisions about which content to host and which to remove. That means states like Texas and Florida can’t force you, me, Parler, Rumble, Facebook or your local grocery store to post messages, images, videos — any form of content.
The sad truth is, Texas’ law is not about protecting Americans or free speech online. It’s about the government trying to advance its own interests at the expense of businesses and consumers who have the right to make their own decisions.
Texas has worked hard to make itself a hub for American technology and innovation, but HB 20 moves the state in an anti-tech direction while potentially exposing its citizens to an unsafe internet. We believe the courts will protect our First Amendment rights laid down by America’s founders and reject Texas’ unconstitutional law, and the internet will be all the better and safer for it.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...l-media-worse/
Remember a few years back, when a baker in Colorado was compelled by law to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple, despite the fact that he personally objected to homosexual marriage on religious grounds?
Well, that was fine. It's ok to use government to force businesses to act in a certain way when doing so protects the perceived rights of someone else.
Except that now it isn't. A lot of folks are getting pretty riled up about a bill which was recently signed into law in Texas, House Bill 20.
What does HB 20 do? Well, it forces social media platforms which do business in Texas not to censor the speech of their users.
And this, according to some (as seen in the article below) is a bad thing, because people might be able to say things which are hurtful, or even (gasp)... wrong!
I honestly find it pretty interesting how they are using the First Amendment itself as a tool to argue in favor of the right to censor. The argument isn't technically incorrect from a purely legal perspective, and I gotta admit that I admire the creativity.
A new Texas law is about to make social media worse
Requiring websites to publish all kinds of speech violates the First Amendment.
By Carl Szebo1:30 AM on Oct 17, 2021
The First Amendment protects us from an overreaching government dictating what we can say and where. But last month, Texas ignored the First Amendment’s limits on government when Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 20 into law.
Presented as a conservative anti-bias law by its supporters, the unconstitutional statute is anything but conservative as it empowers the government to control speech in ways prohibited by the First Amendment.
Texas is now following in the footsteps of Florida in a misguided crusade against social media even if it’s at the expense of the Constitution and free speech. Both Abbott and Gov. Ron DeSantis claim to be defending free speech, but both are putting free speech in danger by trying to get the government involved in online expression.
Just as we sued Florida in May to protect the First Amendment, NetChoice similarly sued Texas last month over HB 20. Citing First Amendment and other constitutional violations, we strongly believe it’s important to protect constitutional freedoms and the safety of American internet users, consumers and small businesses. And just like in Florida, where a federal court enjoined the state from enforcing its unconstitutional law, we expect the same in Texas.
Contrary to the perspective of tech’s critics, removing content from the internet is not some dastardly attempt to censor conservative voices. Content moderation is a feature at the crux of what makes social media useful.
If a website hosts every piece of user-generated content thrown its way, the internet would be saturated with awful but lawful content — spam, pornography, hate speech, misinformation, graphic images and so on. That’s why online services work to protect our online communities, including parents, Republicans and Democrats alike, from the spread of harmful and potentially dangerous content.
If allowed to take effect, HB 20 will ruin much of the internet. It would require our favorite services to host and promote the hateful and harmful screeds of bad actors that today they remove and restrict. Additionally, by telling social media sites they have to host all speech, even if user posts break their service’s rules, HB 20 undermines the First Amendment by using government coercion to compel speech.
Just as delis, diners and dive bars can kick out patrons for violating their policies, digital platforms are allowed to enforce their own rules too. The First Amendment ensures that you, me and just about every business we interact with can make our own decisions about which content to host and which to remove. That means states like Texas and Florida can’t force you, me, Parler, Rumble, Facebook or your local grocery store to post messages, images, videos — any form of content.
The sad truth is, Texas’ law is not about protecting Americans or free speech online. It’s about the government trying to advance its own interests at the expense of businesses and consumers who have the right to make their own decisions.
Texas has worked hard to make itself a hub for American technology and innovation, but HB 20 moves the state in an anti-tech direction while potentially exposing its citizens to an unsafe internet. We believe the courts will protect our First Amendment rights laid down by America’s founders and reject Texas’ unconstitutional law, and the internet will be all the better and safer for it.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...l-media-worse/
Reply
0
0
10-24-2021, 08:04 PM
#47
Here's another interesting one...
Remember a few years back, when a baker in Colorado was compelled by law to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple, despite the fact that he personally objected to homosexual marriage on religious grounds?
Well, that was fine. It's ok to use government to force businesses to act in a certain way when doing so protects the perceived rights of someone else.
Except that now it isn't. A lot of folks are getting pretty riled up about a bill which was recently signed into law in Texas, House Bill 20.
What does HB 20 do? Well, it forces social media platforms which do business in Texas not to censor the speech of their users.
And this, according to some (as seen in the article below) is a bad thing, because people might be able to say things which are hurtful, or even (gasp)... wrong!
I honestly find it pretty interesting how they are using the First Amendment itself as a tool to argue in favor of the right to censor. The argument isn't technically incorrect from a purely legal perspective, and I gotta admit that I admire the creativity.
Remember a few years back, when a baker in Colorado was compelled by law to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple, despite the fact that he personally objected to homosexual marriage on religious grounds?
Well, that was fine. It's ok to use government to force businesses to act in a certain way when doing so protects the perceived rights of someone else.
Except that now it isn't. A lot of folks are getting pretty riled up about a bill which was recently signed into law in Texas, House Bill 20.
What does HB 20 do? Well, it forces social media platforms which do business in Texas not to censor the speech of their users.
And this, according to some (as seen in the article below) is a bad thing, because people might be able to say things which are hurtful, or even (gasp)... wrong!
I honestly find it pretty interesting how they are using the First Amendment itself as a tool to argue in favor of the right to censor. The argument isn't technically incorrect from a purely legal perspective, and I gotta admit that I admire the creativity.
I will admit to not really giving much **** about either side at this point but it is hard to keep track.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2021, 08:58 PM
#48
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,035
Total Cats: 6,601
I honestly thought one side (TX Governor) was using the 1st amendment as the argument AGAINST the right of the business to censor which put it at odds in previous fights where they argued it was the right of a private business to do whatever it wanted i.e. not bake a cake, etc…
Texas is, from a purely technical standpoint, violating the 1st Amendment by forcing businesses to adopt a certain standard with regard to content moderation, and they are doing so under the banner of "free speech."
It's an interesting conundrum, and one which I can't recall having been tested in the courts previously.
Of course, this is a majority-Republican legislature and a Republican governor. Who, broadly speaking, were in the camp of loudly protesting against government forcing businesses to adopt a certain standard with regard to content moderation, back when the "speech" in question was a wedding cake.
It's almost as though Politicians do not have strong convictions about the sanctity of the Constitution, regardless of whether they wear a red hat or a blue hat, but rather do whatever is necessary to create the conflict and drama which fuels the political theater, which entertains the electorate and keeps them in power.
Reply
0
0
10-25-2021, 10:20 AM
#49
Well, yes- that's what makes this especially interesting.
Texas is, from a purely technical standpoint, violating the 1st Amendment by forcing businesses to adopt a certain standard with regard to content moderation, and they are doing so under the banner of "free speech."
It's an interesting conundrum, and one which I can't recall having been tested in the courts previously.
Of course, this is a majority-Republican legislature and a Republican governor. Who, broadly speaking, were in the camp of loudly protesting against government forcing businesses to adopt a certain standard with regard to content moderation, back when the "speech" in question was a wedding cake.
It's almost as though Politicians do not have strong convictions about the sanctity of the Constitution, regardless of whether they wear a red hat or a blue hat, but rather do whatever is necessary to create the conflict and drama which fuels the political theater, which entertains the electorate and keeps them in power.
Texas is, from a purely technical standpoint, violating the 1st Amendment by forcing businesses to adopt a certain standard with regard to content moderation, and they are doing so under the banner of "free speech."
It's an interesting conundrum, and one which I can't recall having been tested in the courts previously.
Of course, this is a majority-Republican legislature and a Republican governor. Who, broadly speaking, were in the camp of loudly protesting against government forcing businesses to adopt a certain standard with regard to content moderation, back when the "speech" in question was a wedding cake.
It's almost as though Politicians do not have strong convictions about the sanctity of the Constitution, regardless of whether they wear a red hat or a blue hat, but rather do whatever is necessary to create the conflict and drama which fuels the political theater, which entertains the electorate and keeps them in power.
Reply
0
0
10-25-2021, 11:11 AM
#50
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,035
Total Cats: 6,601
I mean, a person standing on my lawn uninvited is:
A: A private citizen*, and
B: Trespassing, which is a very straightforward criminal offense in most US states.
I see these examples above (using govt' to force cake-baking, and using govt' to fore non-censorship) as quite unique.
Both are examples of a group using the power of government (either the legislature or the courts), to compel others to behave in a certain way, which may in fact be in direct opposition to the First Amendment, but is otherwise not in violation of any statute.
* = I assume for the purpose of this comparison that Nancy Pelosi is not standing on my lawn espousing religious views.
Reply
0
0
10-25-2021, 12:06 PM
#51
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the cake baking controversy centered around the concept that a business can not deny serving you based on status? If you walked into a restaurant and they told you to leave because you were being loud and disruptive that's fine, but if they flat out said "we don't serve Hispanics here" well, that's where the Government steps in.
Edit: Found it. While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[4][3] Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that include sexual orientation as a protected class in their anti-discrimination laws.[5] Craig and Mullins's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.[6] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers".[7][8]
Edit: Found it. While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[4][3] Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that include sexual orientation as a protected class in their anti-discrimination laws.[5] Craig and Mullins's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.[6] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers".[7][8]
Reply
0
0
10-25-2021, 12:57 PM
#52
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,035
Total Cats: 6,601
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the cake baking controversy centered around the concept that a business can not deny serving you based on status? If you walked into a restaurant and they told you to leave because you were being loud and disruptive that's fine, but if they flat out said "we don't serve Hispanics here" well, that's where the Government steps in.
So far as I am aware, no Federal statue exists which gives a State the power to force a business (Facebook, etc) to enact certain policies on how it moderates user-generated content. On the other hand, I can think of no Federal statue (or Constitutional provision) which specifically denies this authority to the States either, so when the Texas case invariably winds up before the Supreme Court, I'd expect Texas to invoke the tenth amendment.
In either case, the tone in which the article I referenced above (from the Dallas Morning News) was written is substantive to my point here. To wit: "If allowed to take effect, HB 20 will ruin much of the internet. It would require our favorite services to host and promote the hateful and harmful screeds of bad actors that today they remove and restrict."
I'm reading between the lines here, of course. But the author is bemoaning a possible future in which they might be not shielded from "bad things" such as when US Congressman Jim Banks recently referred to a person who is biologically male as a "man" on Twitter, and Twitter valiantly deleted his posts and banned him in order to protect us from such violent hate-speech.
Examples like that are why this sort of policy is distressing. Does Twitter have the right to filter what people are allowed to say on its platform? I'm fairly certain that the answer is "yes."
Is allowing Twitter (and others) to selectively filter content in such a way as to discriminate against truth, thus effectively re-shaping truth to conform to a specific social agenda, ultimately harmful to society? Again, I think the answer is "yes."
This is a great example, to me, of how even the United States Constitution is imperfect. It seems clear that social media companies are actively undermining the fundamental concept of reason, and it would appear that the First Amendment protects their right to do so.
Reply
0
0
10-25-2021, 01:24 PM
#53
Seems to me that it will delve into the philosophical musings of "what is the truth". For true believers of the flat earth theory, that is the truth and you will never convince them otherwise. For most people it is provably false and a silly idea, but since it doesn't really harm anyone we (as a society) tend to just laugh and ignore and not make efforts to silence them.
But what if the ideas spread by flat earth believers were actively harming people? Hyperbole obviously, but what if hundreds of thousands of impressionable people were sailing off into the sunset to die on the open waters searching for the edge of the world? Would it be justified to stop the spread of information by "silencing" them on twitbook?
Is their "right to free speech" more important than stopping harmful information?
But what if the ideas spread by flat earth believers were actively harming people? Hyperbole obviously, but what if hundreds of thousands of impressionable people were sailing off into the sunset to die on the open waters searching for the edge of the world? Would it be justified to stop the spread of information by "silencing" them on twitbook?
Is their "right to free speech" more important than stopping harmful information?
Reply
0
0
10-25-2021, 01:41 PM
#54
I think it's a good idea to let Facebook, Twitter and the like be the moderator of "what is truth." Even better, we will let them decide what is harmful.
Some cake company was required by law to write things they don't like on a cake. In the same exact way, social media companies should be required to leave writings up that they don't want visible to all.
Because according to the makers of the cake, that marriage is harmful. Who in the hell are you to tell them that they are wrong? The truth police? According to google, 20% of all marriages and partnerships have domestic abuse at some point. You want to roll that dice?
Open and shut.
Some cake company was required by law to write things they don't like on a cake. In the same exact way, social media companies should be required to leave writings up that they don't want visible to all.
Because according to the makers of the cake, that marriage is harmful. Who in the hell are you to tell them that they are wrong? The truth police? According to google, 20% of all marriages and partnerships have domestic abuse at some point. You want to roll that dice?
Open and shut.
Reply
0
0
10-25-2021, 04:12 PM
#55
How so?
I mean, a person standing on my lawn uninvited is:
A: A private citizen*, and
B: Trespassing, which is a very straightforward criminal offense in most US states.
I see these examples above (using govt' to force cake-baking, and using govt' to fore non-censorship) as quite unique.
Both are examples of a group using the power of government (either the legislature or the courts), to compel others to behave in a certain way, which may in fact be in direct opposition to the First Amendment, but is otherwise not in violation of any statute.
* = I assume for the purpose of this comparison that Nancy Pelosi is not standing on my lawn espousing religious views.
I mean, a person standing on my lawn uninvited is:
A: A private citizen*, and
B: Trespassing, which is a very straightforward criminal offense in most US states.
I see these examples above (using govt' to force cake-baking, and using govt' to fore non-censorship) as quite unique.
Both are examples of a group using the power of government (either the legislature or the courts), to compel others to behave in a certain way, which may in fact be in direct opposition to the First Amendment, but is otherwise not in violation of any statute.
* = I assume for the purpose of this comparison that Nancy Pelosi is not standing on my lawn espousing religious views.
B. Isn't someone posting on a business's forum trespassing if it's not per the rules as established by that business/citizen? I realize it's not in a physical sense.
Not meaning to get into an endless debate on the topic. At least we aren’t talking about Hippos…
Last edited by bahurd; 10-25-2021 at 05:26 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-26-2021, 08:38 AM
#56
Retired Mech Design Engr
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seneca, SC
Posts: 5,009
Total Cats: 857
US Supreme Court: Craig vs Masterpiece
My side comment: There is a difference between the government allowing you to say something, and the government forcing you to say something.
My side comment: There is a difference between the government allowing you to say something, and the government forcing you to say something.
Reply
0
0
10-26-2021, 09:03 AM
#57
US Supreme Court: Craig vs Masterpiece
My side comment: There is a difference between the government allowing you to say something, and the government forcing you to say something.
My side comment: There is a difference between the government allowing you to say something, and the government forcing you to say something.
Reply
0
0
10-26-2021, 09:07 AM
#58
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,035
Total Cats: 6,601
Which is why the Texas case is so fascinating. The government is forcing a corporation to allow you to say something.
I cannot immediately think of any relevant precedence for this, which is why I assume that the inevitable supreme court arguments will be... interesting.
Reply
0
0
10-26-2021, 09:09 AM
#59
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,035
Total Cats: 6,601
Do a web search for Amyiah Cohoon, and read whichever article you deem most trustworthy.
Short version:
After returning home to Westfield WI from a trip to Orlando in March of 2020, 16 year old Amyiah Cohoon began exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Despite a negative Covid test, she made a post on Instagram, showing a photo of herself wearing an oxygen mask, and stating that she had Covid.
Now, at the time, it was the stated position of Marquette County WI (specifically, the school board) that "there's no Covid in our town." As such, the Sherriff's office dispatched a deputy to Cohoon's hope, who demanded to her parents that the Instagram post be removed, and threatened arrest for disorderly conduct if they did not comply.
They complied.
And that... is terrifying.
Fortunately, the family took this matter to the courts, with the aid of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The US District Court ruled in favor of the family, using rather harsh language to describe the actions of the county and the Sherriff's dept.
But this is now a thing which is actually happening.
Reply
0
0
10-26-2021, 11:58 AM
#60
Sadly, I live in a world in which the government employs police, and uses them as a tool to regulate speech.
Do a web search for Amyiah Cohoon, and read whichever article you deem most trustworthy.
Short version:
After returning home to Westfield WI from a trip to Orlando in March of 2020, 16 year old Amyiah Cohoon began exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Despite a negative Covid test, she made a post on Instagram, showing a photo of herself wearing an oxygen mask, and stating that she had Covid.
Now, at the time, it was the stated position of Marquette County WI (specifically, the school board) that "there's no Covid in our town." As such, the Sherriff's office dispatched a deputy to Cohoon's hope, who demanded to her parents that the Instagram post be removed, and threatened arrest for disorderly conduct if they did not comply.
They complied.
And that... is terrifying.
Fortunately, the family took this matter to the courts, with the aid of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The US District Court ruled in favor of the family, using rather harsh language to describe the actions of the county and the Sherriff's dept.
But this is now a thing which is actually happening.
Do a web search for Amyiah Cohoon, and read whichever article you deem most trustworthy.
Short version:
After returning home to Westfield WI from a trip to Orlando in March of 2020, 16 year old Amyiah Cohoon began exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Despite a negative Covid test, she made a post on Instagram, showing a photo of herself wearing an oxygen mask, and stating that she had Covid.
Now, at the time, it was the stated position of Marquette County WI (specifically, the school board) that "there's no Covid in our town." As such, the Sherriff's office dispatched a deputy to Cohoon's hope, who demanded to her parents that the Instagram post be removed, and threatened arrest for disorderly conduct if they did not comply.
They complied.
And that... is terrifying.
Fortunately, the family took this matter to the courts, with the aid of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The US District Court ruled in favor of the family, using rather harsh language to describe the actions of the county and the Sherriff's dept.
But this is now a thing which is actually happening.
I believe that either party, and most politicians have learned the fine art of using our courts to screw things up. Unfortunately the courts operate at a snails pace and because the news cycle operates in seconds things decided in the courts ultimately go unnoticed.
But I get your point.
Reply
0
0
