We have this thing called body autonomy buried deep in traditional American values.
The idea is, that no one can be compelled to surrender that autonomy, for any reason. It doesn’t matter if your blood is the only possible donor match to someone who will die without it, you cannot be compelled to donate blood.
Even dead bodies can’t be compelled to surrender their autonomy - the President of the United States could be on the brink of death without a heart transplant, and a dead body in a morgue cannot be cut open to extract that lifesaving organ unless the previously-a-person had signed an organ donor card.
So the idea that a woman can be compelled to carry a fetus and give birth to it is nonsense. If it were constitutional to compel that, it would be equally constitutional for someone to invent a surgical method to permit male pregnancies, and get a law passed requiring pro-lifers to carry babies to term.
After all, if pregnancy created an exemption to body autonomy, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would apply it to any sex capable of being pregnant - ad existing medical technology isn’t far from being able to do exactly that to men.
The background check wishlist for gun control laws proposed by the anti-gun movement in the USA would absolutely require at least a partial repeal of medical privacy laws to have any hope of working.
Aside from the fact doctors would be required to breach medical ethics when it comes to patient privacy, it would create huge new databases of private medical information that would be subject to data breaches.
It IS a special on a computer law, because if the defendant had done it literally anywhere but on a computer, the maximum sentence would be a year in jail, but would more likely be punished with a fine or community service.
But because it was on a computer, the penalty is 10-20 years in prison without possibility of parole.
Public Google Docs are public, and the owner had to specifically authorize public access though. His not giving permission to specific people is irrelevant next to the fact he gave blanket consent to everyone in the world.
A better analogy still would be putting a dry erase board in an out of the way, seldom-traveled, but still public corridor. Nobody knows it’s there so anything you write on it goes untouched.
Then one day, you tell someone you trust about where it is, and they publish that information to the world. Shortly thereafter, someone walks down that public corridor, erases something you wrote, and writes their own thing.
Yeah, they didn’t have your direct permission, but you were the one who chose to put it in a public corridor instead of in your private office behind a door that only you have a key to.
Abusing DMCA is a form of copyright violation, and the statutory limit for copyright violations is $150,000 per violation. That adds up fast.
How do you stop people from registering content that isn’t theirs? For example, the TV news channels that rebroadcast NASA camera footage, then tried to get the originals taken down?
I wonder if someone could get the USPTO to issue them a trademark on certain IP terminology, then sue that East Texas court for using them?
It’s not so much the bipartisan system to blame, but the fact you’d have to repeal most of the USA’s human rights laws to do it successfully. People tend to resist that sort of thing, after all.
There are no major news channels that DON’T engage in propaganda and lies. I can’t watch MSNBC or Fox because I constantly want to reach through the screen and strangle them for what are either incredibly blatant lies, or ignorance so deep they’d have no business posting on a shitposting site, let alone running a news channel.
While few other channels are as bad about it as MSNBC and Fox, there aren’t any that don’t engage in propaganda and spin to push an agenda.
There are two definitions of mass shooting in use.
The first is the government definition, in use for decades. The second is a much newer definition, adopted less than a decade ago, by the mainstream, leftist media.
The old definition was 4 or more people killed, not including the shooter, in a single incident. The new definition is 3 or more people shot, including the shooter, no fatalities required, and a much broader definition of it all occurring in the same incident.
Under the new definition, anyone who shoots two people then is killed by police, is a mass shooting incident. If a cop shoots three criminal suspects, that’s also a mass shooting. If three people decide to commit suicide together, and they all use a gun on themselves, it’s a mass shooting.
The thing is though, using the old definition, mass shootings were declining in frequency almost every year for the past 60 years. The same pattern shows clearly if you apply the mainstream media definition of mass shooting to all past incidents.
But the mainstream media doesn’t do that. They ONLY apply their new definition to incidents after they adopted it, NEVER to shooting incidents prior to that adoption. This creates an illusion that the frequency of mass shootings suddenly went up by two or more orders of magnitude a few years back, and have remained super high ever since.
That illusion creates an extreme urgency to ban guns that wouldn’t exist using the old definition. After all, under the old definition, your odds of being caught in a mass shooting were similar to those of being struck by lightning. Nobody dives for cover when they hear thunder in the distance, so the anti-gun people needed an increased sense of danger and urgency to get their agenda accomplished. The new definition and that deliberate illusion that mass shootings are becoming drastically more frequent, accomplishes that nicely.
Given the actual rate of mass shootings and that annual decline in frequency, despite what the mainstream media would have you believe, you are safer from mass shootings today than you were as a kid - and when you were a kid, you were safer than your parents were as kids.
Trump didn’t tell anyone to inject bleach or sunlight either - that was a lie told by his political opponents, and repeated uncritically by Leftist media.
The transcript of what he actually said, as well as the video, is widely available, if you bother to look.
To summarize: Trump had an odd random thought while giving a speech, as he often does, and turned to a medical expert with him at the head of the room, and asked the doctor a question about medical matters. Trump is not a medical expert, and has a… way… with words, so he phrased his question a bit poorly, but the medical expert said that was a bad idea, so Trump dropped the matter and continued his speech.
Anyone believing Trump told them to inject bleach got their orders from the Left media, not direct from Trump.
If a supreme court justice issues a defective - or even outright illegal - warrant, who do you appeal to?
Which, ironically, allows cops to win awards for their great success in reducing petty crimes - because the metric used for those is to compare unsolved reports to arrests.
Blocking worker drones from their jobs would make her an anti-capitalist commie! smh
(I specify anti-capitalist, because there are apparently all kinds of ‘commies’ in her side’s world view, only about 1 in 20 can be connected to actual communism by even a conspiracy theorist)
This. If you or I ignored even one court order, we’d be indefinitely confined to a jail cell for contempt, until we complied. We certainly wouldn’t get off scot-free for ignoring multiple court orders.
Pointing that fact out to a judge might have interesting results!
Odds are, the courts would rule it wasn’t a 3rd amendment violation. After all, that’s how they ruled the last time.
Police are not the US Army - even though they meet the definition of a standing army in use when the 3rd amendment was ratified - according to the courts. Since National Guardsmen are also not the US Army, the courts might well rule quartering the Guard in private homes isn’t a 3rd amendment violation either.