The politicians, in this case Republicans, will continue to attempt to chip away at it, but will find little success in the long run. The First is clear on this matter and only a new Amendment can change it at this point. (Which new Amendment would be certain to fail in the current political environment.)
Now please, everyone, take note, Freedom of Expression doesn't mean freedom from people, companies, or organizations disassociating themselves from you. In fact, Freedom of Expression implies Freedom of Association. So cancel culture will be with us for the long term as well.
Law is not self-executing, it is enforced by humans, and if you make the law very hard to change on paper, it just becomes easier to change the people enforcing it than the law on paper. All it takes is a single faction controlling the Senate and White House with sufficient commitment to an issue to make it a judicial litmus test for long enough to get a compliant majority on the Supreme Court to make the Constitution do anything they want, regardless of what it says.
I quite agree the cracks have formed
Everyone who connects to corporate networks while traveling for business will be thrilled. In fact, my ability to wfh, as I'm doing right now, would end. What a great idea for all the people in my org who appreciate saving on commuting, parking (our building is downtown), taking care of kids at home, etc. Let's be so afraid of porn that we completely destroy lots of unrelated businesses.
I don't understand prudish politicians, but I sure dislike them and their ideas.
On a related note can TLS be considered "encrypted tunneling methods"? If so, good luck doing anything online in Michigan.
Since various US states, both red and blue, have no longer been respecting the Constitution, I am starting to think that the US would be better off being separate countries by clustering their states, with audited electronic gold as their currency, but all still a part of NATO. The point is for there to exist significantly more competition between the "states", and for one's states absurd restrictions to not harm the freedoms of the citizens of other states.
Blue states have been trampling on the constitution for the past decade. Would you say they need to be part of this same group? Or is it only states that differ from your personal opinions?
> an individual or entity that violates this subsection is guilty of a felony. Punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $100,000.00, or both.
Am I reading this right, possibly a $100k fine and up to 20 years in prison for a biological man posting a picture of themself dressing in clothing considered "female"?
> (ii) Prohibited material does not include any of the following:
> (A) Material to be used for scientific and medical research or instruction.
> (B) Peer-reviewed academic content.
The bar to publish a paper seems extremely low these days anyway so maybe that's a viable workaround for those folks to protect themselves, just publish it as a paper.
and even if it did pass, it's going to very unlikely be all that enforceable?
nerdsniper•1h ago
lupusreal•1h ago
I doubt any of this will go anywhere though, it's mostly just pandering to local christians and for them the nominal attempt counts nearly as much as actually getting it done.
taylodl•1h ago
yorwba•1h ago
wrs•52m ago
Bender•12m ago
Either way I think its a moot point. If the bill could include corporations they would band together and kill the bill along with having the politician censured or expelled. Corporations have a lot of influence, lawyers and money. Threaten their money and they make things happen.
Not much if any critical thinking went into this proposal. It's likely just a virtue-signal to win favor.
billy99k•49m ago