Jump to content

chainsaw

Full Members
  • Posts

    5054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chainsaw

  1. I read an article about it. The story reminded me of the recent Akina "hire" attempt where Coach Engelland wanted a bigger role but Pop not being on board in the same way Sark couldn't offer Akina anything more than a "consultant" role. I'm not sure if Chip actually get that expanded role up in OKC, since by now he's pretty well-known as a shooting coach and why the hell would you go out and get that and ask him to spend time doing things he hasn't got as much experience doing.
  2. I remember the guy who represented himself in that wisconsin parade car chase guy case, she had to put him in a different room and forced him to participate over video whenever he got too disruptive
  3. Like most narcissists, he's in constant pursuit of narratives that allow him to avoid unflattering truths. You see, he hasn't been committing boneheaded gaffes and squandering the goodwill of these once proud companies, he's just under siege by the deep state and has to make difficult "wartime ceo" decisions.
  4. I'm sure Elon Musk will come to the rescue in response to this egregious censorship
  5. Beto was hauling ass and pounding the pavement in 2018. What has Allred been up to?
  6. Is leasing always bad? I haven't really heard the arguments and I've never leased a car but I have been curious about not "owning" a depreciating asset.
  7. That's a relief. I still haven't jumped on the bandwagon.
  8. Glad you've been able to keep up the weight loss. That's exceptional, as most people who stop using GLP-1 gain the weight back.
  9. https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blog/cert-petition ACLU, Free Speech Coalition and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Unconstitutional Texas Law Burdening Adult Access to Sexual Content Legal Apr 12 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 12, 2024 MEDIA CONTACT: ACLU Media, media@aclu.org FSC Media, press@freespeechcoalition.com WASHINGTON – Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, the Free Speech Coalition and others today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that, if left standing, would improperly burden free speech online. The petition for certiorari was filed in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which challenges an unconstitutional age-verification provision in Texas’s H.B. 1181. “Though it purportedly seeks to limit minors’ access to online sexual content, the law in fact imposes significant burdens on adults’ access to constitutionally-protected expression, requiring them to provide personal identifying information online to access sensitive, intimate content” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “This isn’t the first time that concerns about minors’ access have led legislators to pass unconstitutional laws. We’ve gone through this time and again, with everything from drive-in movies to video games to websites, and courts have repeatedly struck down laws imposing requirements that burden adults’ access to non-obscene sexual content in the name of protecting children.” HB 1181 requires certain sites with sexual content to force their visitors to provide digital IDs or other proof of age before they can access the published material. Sites that do not comply could face up to $3 million in fines. This provision claims to protect minors from accessing sexual content deemed harmful to them, but it does not merely restrict minors’ access. It also restricts adults’ access to this content, effectively requiring them to identify themselves online. Requiring individuals to verify their ages before accessing this protected speech robs people of anonymity, and threatens to bar individuals—for example, those who lack government identification or whose age is mis-identified by the relevant technology—from accessing certain websites altogether. The ACLU and its partners argue that the law places an impermissible burden on the exercise of adults’ First Amendment rights online. “Despite proponent’s claims, age-verification online is simply not the same as flashing an ID at a check-out counter. The process is invasive and burdensome, with significant privacy risks for adult consumers,” said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition. “In states where these laws have passed, the vast majority of users have refused to comply, leading to a massive chilling effect on their legal right to access constitutionally protected speech. Adult sites are the canary in the coal mine of free speech, and we look forward to defending the rights of all Americans to access the internet free from surveillance.” Before the case reached the Supreme Court, a district court briefly blocked the law from being enforced, stating that, as written, the law’s age-verification provision would unconstitutionally chill the speech of adults. However, a divided Fifth Circuit panel recently vacated that injunction, reasoning that the age-verification provisions’ burden on adults’ First Amendment rights merely has to have some rational basis–not face strict scrutiny–because the aim is to protect children. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, this decision will effectively reverse decades of precedent protecting the free speech rights of adults. In prior cases brought by the ACLU, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the crucial role anonymity can play online and held that requiring users to verify their age to access protected content is unconstitutional where there are less restrictive alternatives available, like filtering software. In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, also meant to protect children, violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech in part because of the burden it imposed on adults. In Ashcroft v. ACLU, the Court held that a law almost identical to the Texas law had to satisfy strict scrutiny because it restricted adults’ access to protected sexual speech. Where a less-restrictive alternative exists—for example, the installation of filtering software on minors’ devices, which states can encourage or legislate—the government cannot impose age verification on adults in the name of protecting children. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is one of several cases in which the ACLU has urged courts to reject age-verification schemes that would burden the free speech rights of Internet users as part of the organization’s long tradition of defending online free expression. This petition was filed jointly by the ACLU and the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan on behalf of Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al. The brief can be found online here.
  10. Is lighting billions of dollars on fire not a type of danger? In one of the stories I remember, a series of questionable financial decisions was how a few family members were nudged off the fence from the effort to get that person help.
  11. DeSantis will come close
  12. I promise I'm not being glib or facetious here. What would it take for him to get involuntarily committed? The only people I've ever known who have been this reckless and deluded have all ended up on serious psychiatric meds and/or institutionalized.
  13. What is Bill Walton going to do now that the Pac 12 is no more?
  14. Only people who should have Cybertrucks are collectors who intend never to drive it and only to have it on display with other incredibly stupid cars
  15. If I am remembering right, he also refused a lot of good medical advice because it was "western"
  16. Why do you think they're so hysterical about birth rates and immigration? You know who else tried to manage "undesirable" populations and how they tried to do it? You really think they aren't going to try?? Look around you. They're already working on this.
×
×
  • Create New...