mesamunefire@lemmy.world
on 28 Apr 23:25
nextcollapse
So how would this work with the fediverse? Like we federate all content…its going to be VERY difficult to do anything if political content creators keep being told to take it down.
No, it’s worse than that. It’s impossible to meet the standards set in this and other bills of it’s type without having a shortlist of curated, controlled people creating online content. That’s literally the point, keeping people from interesting with information they deem unsavory.
That said, it is impossible to enforce unless they want to set up the great firewall of america.
such as reddit, we already know they have been doing it at the behest of the gop since '16
just_another_person@lemmy.world
on 28 Apr 23:42
nextcollapse
Another waste of our time and money. It’s a bill to try and force companies to remove content they don’t like…or else.
This will be shot down in court (again), and since the platforms themselves will be responsible for removing content, will not be forced to comply. It’s unconstitutional and unenforceable, so just a big ass waste of everyone’s fucking time. So dumb.
You’re assuming the courts will shoot it down. That’s a big assumption these days.
just_another_person@lemmy.world
on 29 Apr 00:43
collapse
Show me one case where a judge has ruled an unconstitutional thing is suddenly constitutional in all these court cases. Even SCOTUS isnt playing that game.
Roe v Wade determined that the right to privacy was in the Constitution (due process clause of 4th Amendment) and that Texas laws restricting it were unconstitutional.
States restricting abortion was the unconstitutional thing which was suddenly Constitutional again after Dobbs.
Yes, that is how Supreme Court decisions work. Did you imagine that once a thing was ruled unconstitutional, or vice versa, that it could never be reversed?
DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
on 29 Apr 02:15
nextcollapse
Allowing trump to run again after inciting an insurrection?
just_another_person@lemmy.world
on 29 Apr 02:19
collapse
Again, not been a court case. If he tries, it will be shot down. There is no wiggle room for bullshit in the constitution about this.
DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
on 29 Apr 16:46
collapse
Yes there has been a court case, Colorado didn’t want to put Trump on the ballot because of the insurrection clause, it went up to the supreme Court and they said it was A-OK.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world
on 29 Apr 02:27
nextcollapse
At least two members of SCOTUS are definitely playing that game
just_another_person@lemmy.world
on 29 Apr 03:06
collapse
Two members that know what would happen to them if they fracture codified law and intentionally do not. 300 million of us vs thousands in government.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world
on 29 Apr 03:20
collapse
Well not 300 million of us, since seemingly every registered Republican in the nation is also ecstatic about tearing the constitution to pieces. And they’re nearly the only ones among us who actually choose to own guns and have the capacity to actually do anything about it.
just_another_person@lemmy.world
on 29 Apr 03:42
collapse
Be pedantic all you want. Millions versus thousands wins.
When they ruled he has immunity. And in may well hear the supreme courts ruling on the legitimacy of the fourteenth amendment. Then there’s Eileen Cannon.
I think presidents having immunity is essential to have a functioning democracy. Otherwise the party currently in power could arrest the previous president for something they allegedly did while in power and would set a bad precedent. I think it is best for the presidents to be immune unless impeached by both the house and senate for something particularly heinous. And yes, Trump should probably have been impeached already after the insurrection, but that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t just willy-nilly arrest some ex president. There is separation of power for a good reason: to not give too much power to any branch of government.
Khanzarate@lemmy.world
on 29 Apr 10:57
nextcollapse
No.
Of course even the president has a right to due process, but no. If the president commits treason, he doesn’t get to be immune to that. A trial is warranted and an arrest if found guilty is correct.
Yes, corruption could hypothetically rig such a trial. But a president immune from the consequences of his actions means there only needs to be one person corrupted to ruin a whole branch of government, instead of the hundreds it would take Congress to rig a trial.
Thanks for the constructive feedback. If the American system would have been functional enough to actually impeach and indict him then we wouldn’t have this conversation right now as his immunity would have been stripped. That’s impeachments whole point – to hold people in power, who are otherwise immune from prosecution accountable (at least that’s how I understand it), but I totally get where you’re coming from.
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Impeachment is important and it should’ve happened, but the senate literally can’t do anything except remove him from office, and the impeachment text specifically allows for regular law to also apply to whoever got impeached.
So no, we do not have this covered by impeachment, and no former president is immune from regular legal proceedings.
Current presidents are, though, through supreme court precedent and the self-pardon. Former presidents should not automatically get this benefit though.
Presidential immunity. It’s a blanket statement of “you’re wrong” to everything you could possibly follow up with attempting to rebutt that statement.
just_another_person@lemmy.world
on 30 Apr 15:37
collapse
Presidential immunity doesn’t extend to every other person acting at the direction of the President. In fact, it extends to nobody. It may not even work if prosecuted, because that’s not what SCOTUS actually said. They only said that president couldn’t essentially be held liable for presidential actions, and then didn’t clarify exactly what those were. They intentionally didn’t specifically make a list of this actions, which depending on your viewpoint, means it’s everything, or nothing.
threaded - newest
So how would this work with the fediverse? Like we federate all content…its going to be VERY difficult to do anything if political content creators keep being told to take it down.
It doesnt work. Literally unenforceable outside of traditional walled gardens.
Wow. If the fediverse is only operable by meta's instance inside the USA, I'm really going to miss everyone, because I'm just not, with meta.
so we create a walled garden of our own.
can’t complain if the public can’t view it.
someone takes screenshots of the problematic content and shares it? well they’re in trouble for posting/sharing problematic content.
No, it’s worse than that. It’s impossible to meet the standards set in this and other bills of it’s type without having a shortlist of curated, controlled people creating online content. That’s literally the point, keeping people from interesting with information they deem unsavory.
That said, it is impossible to enforce unless they want to set up the great firewall of america.
basically only Right wing propaganda is allowed.
such as reddit, we already know they have been doing it at the behest of the gop since '16
Another waste of our time and money. It’s a bill to try and force companies to remove content they don’t like…or else.
This will be shot down in court (again), and since the platforms themselves will be responsible for removing content, will not be forced to comply. It’s unconstitutional and unenforceable, so just a big ass waste of everyone’s fucking time. So dumb.
You’re assuming the courts will shoot it down. That’s a big assumption these days.
Show me one case where a judge has ruled an unconstitutional thing is suddenly constitutional in all these court cases. Even SCOTUS isnt playing that game.
Banning abortion?
Not in the constitution. That was a Supreme Court judgement (Roe v Wade) that was overturned.
Roe v Wade determined that the right to privacy was in the Constitution (due process clause of 4th Amendment) and that Texas laws restricting it were unconstitutional.
States restricting abortion was the unconstitutional thing which was suddenly Constitutional again after Dobbs.
Yes, that is how Supreme Court decisions work. Did you imagine that once a thing was ruled unconstitutional, or vice versa, that it could never be reversed?
No, I didn't imagine that.
Did you read the direct thread to my comment?
Allowing trump to run again after inciting an insurrection?
Again, not been a court case. If he tries, it will be shot down. There is no wiggle room for bullshit in the constitution about this.
Yes there has been a court case, Colorado didn’t want to put Trump on the ballot because of the insurrection clause, it went up to the supreme Court and they said it was A-OK.
Edit, link: scotusblog.com/…/supreme-court-rules-states-canno…
At least two members of SCOTUS are definitely playing that game
Two members that know what would happen to them if they fracture codified law and intentionally do not. 300 million of us vs thousands in government.
Well not 300 million of us, since seemingly every registered Republican in the nation is also ecstatic about tearing the constitution to pieces. And they’re nearly the only ones among us who actually choose to own guns and have the capacity to actually do anything about it.
Be pedantic all you want. Millions versus thousands wins.
When they ruled he has immunity. And in may well hear the supreme courts ruling on the legitimacy of the fourteenth amendment. Then there’s Eileen Cannon.
I think presidents having immunity is essential to have a functioning democracy. Otherwise the party currently in power could arrest the previous president for something they allegedly did while in power and would set a bad precedent. I think it is best for the presidents to be immune unless impeached by both the house and senate for something particularly heinous. And yes, Trump should probably have been impeached already after the insurrection, but that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t just willy-nilly arrest some ex president. There is separation of power for a good reason: to not give too much power to any branch of government.
No.
Of course even the president has a right to due process, but no. If the president commits treason, he doesn’t get to be immune to that. A trial is warranted and an arrest if found guilty is correct.
Yes, corruption could hypothetically rig such a trial. But a president immune from the consequences of his actions means there only needs to be one person corrupted to ruin a whole branch of government, instead of the hundreds it would take Congress to rig a trial.
Thanks for the constructive feedback. If the American system would have been functional enough to actually impeach and indict him then we wouldn’t have this conversation right now as his immunity would have been stripped. That’s impeachments whole point – to hold people in power, who are otherwise immune from prosecution accountable (at least that’s how I understand it), but I totally get where you’re coming from.
The trial is called impeachment proceedings. We already have this covered.
Here’s the text.
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Impeachment is important and it should’ve happened, but the senate literally can’t do anything except remove him from office, and the impeachment text specifically allows for regular law to also apply to whoever got impeached.
So no, we do not have this covered by impeachment, and no former president is immune from regular legal proceedings.
Current presidents are, though, through supreme court precedent and the self-pardon. Former presidents should not automatically get this benefit though.
Hard fucking NO. If the don’t break the laws they don’t have to worry about being perused by the other parties. People fucking died for this.
Kinks: the taste of boot leather
Presidential immunity. It’s a blanket statement of “you’re wrong” to everything you could possibly follow up with attempting to rebutt that statement.
Presidential immunity doesn’t extend to every other person acting at the direction of the President. In fact, it extends to nobody. It may not even work if prosecuted, because that’s not what SCOTUS actually said. They only said that president couldn’t essentially be held liable for presidential actions, and then didn’t clarify exactly what those were. They intentionally didn’t specifically make a list of this actions, which depending on your viewpoint, means it’s everything, or nothing.
Oh I like that. Schrodinger’s box with presidential immunity in it.
Even progressive darlen AOC voted for this bullshit. You know who won’t Sanders.
Free speech? What are those?