So what happens when two states-- say Texas and New York-- pass laws imposing conflicting requirements on website operators, i.e., if New York requires you to do something that Texas prohibits you from doing?
How can a California website operator obey both laws? The fact that he can't illustrates why this idea that the New York legislature can bind all 50 states to its demands doesn't hold water.
Tell that to the governments.
Yes, that's what courts are for-- to tell that to the governments.
At the very least, New York State pretty much just
guaranteed that small sites like ours need to find
and pay a lawyer in New York to tell us what we can
do to avoid liability.
Why would you have liability? You're a California-based company, yes? Unless you have offices or other physical presence in New York, why would you have to abide by New York law?
Merely putting up a site on the internet doesn't subject you to the laws of every state, county and city in the nation, anymore than it subjects you to laws of every other country on earth.
On the other hand if the press does want to try to do something
This is the problem with the current state of the media-- they (and you, apparently) believe it's the press's job to "do something", to become participants in the story rather than just reporting the facts of the story.
What exactly counts as a "realistic fake image of a minor", anyway?
If a 19-year-old girl (legal adult) who looks young for her age dresses up as a schoolgirl, puts her hair in pigtails and sucks on a lollipop, is that a realistic fake image of a minor?
And for computer-generated people, how does the government determine how old a person that doesn't exist is? The defendant can claim the digital avatar is a depiction of someone 18 years old. How does the government prove it's really a representation of a 16-year-old person?
It's actually not unusual for a court to prohibit both sides in litigation from making public statements about the case. Doing so has been ruled consistent with the 1st Amendment.
I can see the judge allowing Horwitz to continue to tweet about CoreCivic in general, but prohibiting him from specifically discussing the case currently at bar in public.
You would prefer I say “the Supreme Court would take an
action, resulting in abortion being criminalized”?
No, because that's disingenuous. Why is just being truthful so hard for y'all these days? This decision won't result in abortion being criminalized, full stop. It may be criminalized in a handful of states but it will still be legal in more states than it won't be. And no matter what its status, it will be those states which determine it, not the Supreme Court, as Cushing falsely stated.
When the Supreme Court ruled in the 1800s that regulation of gambling was not a federal matter, it didn't "outlaw gambling". It merely acknowledged that each state had the power to regulate gambling as it saw fit. Some outlawed it, some didn't. This would be no different.
Other than in the fact that tons of states have trigger laws
that say that if the Supreme Court reverses Roe that
abortion becomes criminalized.
Then that would be those states criminalizing abortion, not the Supreme Court.
Honestly, you didn't used to be so disingenuous.
With the Supreme Court apparently willing to criminalize abortion again...
I suppose it's too much to ask for Cushing to be honest with his reporting. Even if the decision is as the leaked document purports, the Court is not criminalizing anything. It's merely saying that abortion is not a federally protected right, which in no way, shape, or form equates to criminalizing abortion.
he mentioned that Noriega was “overly nervous,” was providing
“vague and implausible travel plans
As if providing travel plans of any kind to a government official is some kind of requirement.
I've run into this a few times at the many DUI checkpoints that spring up around here with regularity. I provide all the required documentation to the officer and he inevitably starts asking me things like, "Where are you going? Where are you coming from? What are you doing out here at X hour of the night/morning?"
I ask them if I'm required to provide details of my private life to the government upon request (I know I am not) and whether I'm legally required to justify my presence on public roads at certain times of the day or night (I know I am not) and that pretty much ends it right there. They frown at me, hand me back my license and registration, and wave me on. Only once did I have the cop tell me that "you'll give me whatever information I ask for or I'll lock you up for impeding an official investigation". I immediately asked for the watch commander or operations supervisor, who apologized and sent me on my way.
The fact that they're owned privately rather than by the government makes them legally more permissible. The government has to be abide by the Bill of Rights, which is inapplicable to private individuals and organizations.
The 4th Amendment may require the government to get a warrant to compile data on you. A private company is under no such obligation.
OBAMA: "It's not necessary for people to believe disinformation in order to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country's public square with enough raw sewage, you just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theories, that citizens no longer know what to believe."
ALSO OBAMA: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Blue-check celebrities are now threatening to "leave Twitter" if Musk buys the company. (Kinda like how all those Hollywood knobheads threatened to move to Canada if Trump was elected, then not a single one of them did it.)
And the sensitive daffodils who work there are having to take days off to deal with the stress of Musk's involvement with the company.
"Elon Musk’s looming battle with Twitter’s board is
a source of major anxiety for company employees –
many of whom are reportedly worried that billionaire's
campaign to force changes is just beginning.
"The uncertainty left Twitter workers feeling 'super
stressed' about the future, with employees
reportedly 'working together to help each other
get through the week.'"
Looks like the cockroaches hiding in the dark are fretting. Who says 2022 hasn't brought us any good news?
Your celebration is somewhat premature.
If Musk joined the board, he would be capped at owning 14.9% of the company shares. If he stays off the board and doubles his current shares, then he’ll have enough votes to add board members and drive the direction of Twitter. Or maybe he’s just planning on buying Twitter outright.
However, what we may push back on are (1) situations
where there are attempts to use the power of the
state, whether by regulation or through the courts to
change those rules or (2) when people say stuff that
is just blatantly ignorant, like claiming that Twitter is
trying to “censor conservatives.”
Nope, I've been instantly vilified by your remoras here for merely suggesting that censorship on Twitter-- which has become a de facto town square even if can't be legally treated like one-- is bad for society when it won't allow even scientific facts to be discussed because they deem reality to be 'harassing' or some such nonsense.