quindraco @ quindraco @lemm.ee

Posts

5

Comments

764

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not defamation. And the new law will likely fail to hold up to 1A scrutiny, if the description of it is accurate (it often is not, for multiple reasons that include these bills generally changing over time). This is more of a free speech issue than photoshopping someone's head onto someone else's nude body, because no real person's head or body is involved, just an inhumanly good artist drawing a nude, and on top of that the law punishes possession, not just creation.

An example question any judge is going to have for the prosecutor if this goes to trial is how the image the law bans is meaningfully different from writing a lurid description of what someone looks like naked without actually knowing. Can you imagine going to jail because you have in your pocket a note someone else wrote and handed you that describes Trump as having a small penis? Or a drawn image of Trump naked? Because that's what's being pitched here.

You'd bring your expensive device that is easily destroyed by water to engage in a water-reliant sport while surrounded by mountains likely to block the device's signal?

How can you be this ignorant? Different states have different laws, you absolute buffoon. Note that the processes by which Colorado and Maine banned Trump from the ballot were wildly different - and neither one involved the state attorney general. Where the hell did you get the idea that some process involving attorneys general banning people from the ballot was legal in every state?

Information not mentioned in this article:

In Italy speeding fines are a fixed amount based on how far over the limit you're going, which makes them a regressive tax on going fast - wealthy people can sinply afford to speed as much as they like while the poor suffer. That woman they quoted who clearly thought the cameras would meaningfully deter speeding was full of shit; the cameras are there to generate revenue, not reduce speeding.

You don't need to understand courtroom etiquette to pass a bar exam.

What is wrong with your browser? Did you turn your adblock off or something? This is the bottom of the article.

At that price point the company might as well just agree to pay it on the regular and go about its business as usual.

Such provisional measures issued by the world court are legally binding,

That's impossible. Israel is a country, there's no legal authority above that. That's what "sovereign" means when we refer to a country as one.

It's entirely possible Israel has signed treaties whereby it agrees to follow World Court orders, but if it violated said treaties, that wouldn't be illegal (since Israel would give itself permission to do so, making it legal under Israeli law). Legality isn't really defined when countries interact with each other.

Speaking as someone who has none - getting by without any vanity is super tough. All the myriad decisions you make that are purely for the benefit of others sensing you require vanity as motivation - otherwise, you have to spend willpower on every little thing, and that's doable, it's just exhausting.

I don't think you know what literally means.

Don't forget to report the post itself - this is a news sub, not a blog sub.

Under-appreciated comment.

There's a lot to unpack here.

Have you seen the numbers flowing in?

No, and neither have you.

The money used to support it comes from our taxes.

It is a design choice - a Republican one - that we make legal immigration so difficult and time consuming that immigrants can't quickly get through the legal process and then pay for the process with their taxes. This argument lets the GOP design their own problem and then complain it isn't solved.

Unmanaged immigration is not good.

Straw man. No-one is arguing for unmanaged immigration; they are arguing for more immigration that is managed.

Immigration laws exist for a reason.

Yes, but you are talking like you don't know what that reason is, so I'll tell you. Per the Constitution, the number of House members a state gets depends on its human population, regardless of status. That means immigrants of all sorts, even illegal ones, count for it while standing in the state. The GOP and DNC both assume that districts with high immigrant populations will vote for the DNC, so the DNC always fights for making immigration easier and the GOP always gights for making it easier. Immigration laws are about preserving political power, not protecting your tax dollars.

I should know, I went through the entire US immigration process legally myself and even sponsored an immigrant while providing support for them.

Then how is it you seem to labor under the misapprehension that legal immigration is implemented in a practically functional way? Its backlog is quite infamous.

That's just not true. Where did you get this idea?

Rezvani Vengeance has a bullet resistance package as an optional add-on, it's factory built.

Armormax specializes in ensuring that aftermarket weight isn't a big deal.

You left out child labor, unless you're including that under slavery, which it's functionally equivalent to.

Her husband's not a lawmaker. Once again: lawmakers should be banned from trading stocks.

This source is so bad the article ends with a full confession that they aim to be biased. Why is this being posted to a news sub?

It is not a slippery slope fallacy.

[Bryant] is described as [...] 5 feet 11 inches tall, weighing 145 pounds. 

Sounds like he could fit between the bars.

What's your argument? That we should allow foreigners and teenagers to run for President because no-one can be trusted to enforce the requirements to run?