This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
June is coming to an end, which means all the most controversial SCOTUS opinions are coming out in the traditional big lump. These opinions are sharply divided, often along ideological lines, with lively dissents and concurrences--pretty enjoyable for a law nerd like me. Relevant to this thread, these cases tend to focus on big culture-war topics like abortion and gender stuff. This week saw the following:
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic - Abortion. Congress requires States who receive Medicaid funds to, among other things, permit patients to obtain medical assistance from "any qualified provider." South Carolina receives federal Medicaid funding, but excludes Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program because state law prohibits using public funds for abortion. Planned Parenthood files a section 1983 claim (this is important, IMO) arguing that it is a "qualified provider" and that Congress's Medicaid statute created a federal right for any qualified provider to receive Medicaid funds. The court, with a 6-3 conservative-liberal split, says "no." Gorsuch writes the majority opinion: the "any-qualified-provider" provision of the federal Medicaid statute does not create a right for medical providers to receive Medicaid funding. All it does is specify a condition with which participating States must "substantially comply" in order to receive federal funding. If South Carolina doesn't want to comply, the feds can kick South Carolina out of the Medicaid program, but that's not the same as creating a "right" to Medicaid funds. Section 1983 is only for vindication of a person's federal rights; there is no right for a provider to receive Medicaid funding from a State, so Planned Parenthood doesn't have a valid 1983 claim. Jackson writes the dissent; I didn't really read it carefully, because the majority seems clearly to have the better argument here. Everyone agrees that South Carolina could, if it wanted to, simply reject federal funding altogether. Then nobody in South Carolina would get Medicaid funding, and South Carolina wouldn't have to abide by any of the provisions of the Medicaid statute. It's hard to say that people have an enforceable federal "right" to receive Medicaid funding from a state, when everyone acknowledges that the state has no obligation to participate in the Medicaid system at all.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton - Pornography 6-3 conservative opinion, Thomas. First Amendment does not prohibit Texas from requiring age-verification for pornographic websites. Kagan writes the dissent.
Mahmoud v. Taylor - LGBTQ+ Books and Lessons in Schools 6-3 conservative opinion, Alito. Religious students and parents have a constitutional right, under the free exercise clause, to opt-out of pro-LGBTQ+ curricula in public schools. Thomas writes a concurrence. Sotomayor wrote the dissent.
In my opinion, the biggest case today was:
Trump v. CASA, Inc. - Immigration BUT ACTUALLY Federal Court Procedure (sounds boring but is, IMO, super important) 6-3 conservative opinion, Barrett. 3 concurrences! 2 dissents! This is the "birthright citizenship" case: does the Court agree with the Trump administration that some people born on U.S. soil are nevertheless not American citizens? IDK! Because the Court doesn't answer that question. Instead, it addresses whether the lower federal court had the authority to issue a nationwide injunction against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement proceedings. The Court held it did not have that authority. Federal courts can only determine cases and issue binding decisions as to the parties before them, not the country as a whole. The lower court's national injunction is stayed as to any people not among the parties to the suit.
Some are saying the Court "punted" on the birthright citizenship thing, but I think the Court actually addressed a far more important culture-war issue. "Nationwide" or "universal" injunctions have been part of the playbook for activists' (especially progressive activists) lawfare for a long time. The idea is to find some sympathetic plaintiff who would be affected by a statute or executive action you don't like, shop around the whole country until you find a judge who agrees with you, and then get that judge--before the case has even been tried--to indefinitely prevent the government from applying the challenged law/regulation/action to anyone, anywhere in the country. This opinion represents a potentially huge obstacle to progressive activist's attempts to stymie Trump's immigration agenda.
Less interesting cases, IMO:
Gutierrez v. Saenz - Criminal Procedure. A lurid murder case gives rise to a pretty boring dispute about death-row inmates' standing to request post-conviction testing of DNA evidence. I can't really figure out the nuances of the Texas law at issue or the procedural history, but it looks like the Sotomayor-led majority thinks Gutierrez has standing; he has a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in the ability to request post-conviction DNA testing, even though the prosecutor apparently has both the right and the express intention to refuse that request in this case. Barrett concurs but chides the majority for "muddying the waters of standing doctrine." Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, dissents. Thomas, typically, offers a solo dissent on the quixotic ground that the Fourteenth Amendment has been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court since the early twentieth century; in his view, the "liberty" interests protected by the 14A do not include state-created entitlements like Texas' post-conviction DNA testing procedure. My read: SCOTUS lets a death-row inmate file a doomed, pointless post-conviction motion that doesn't have any hope of success but will probably delay his execution for a few more years (Gutierrez was convicted in 1998).
Riley v. Bondi - Immigration/Deportation. Deportation is a hot-button topic right now, but this opinion about filing deadlines and the distinction between claims-processing rules and jurisdictional requirements is too dry for me to get worked up about. Perhaps notable for the fact that Gorsuch broke from the conservative majority to join, in part, Sotomayor's dissent. Pretty boring overall!
There were others, but they don't have as much culture war salience as the above, IMO. I meant to do a longer write-up, a little paragraph for each case, but I'm too tired ... sorry
How did this case come about to begin with? Is Texas just requiring the same sort of "age verification" that's existed since the 90s (the website says are you 18 and you click yes)? If so, how was it possibly worthwhile for FSC to sue over that?
No. This new law effectively requires adults to upload their driver's licenses for age verification.
(I don't know what "a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data" would be.)
what if you're homeless/transient and don't have a driver's license or any other sort of ID? That's the argument that's always been used against requiring voter ID, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply here.
So what? You don't have a right to easy porn, so even if an ID requirement is an onerous burden, onerous burdens are fine sometimes.
Sure, but not in this case.
The internet has always been open for all.
Porn has been around since day one.
I remember trying to go on espn the first time I went online in maybe 1996 via AOL and porn came up. No damage done.
This is, imo, just puritinism.
I get it’s not a right … but having to wait for someone to unlock the deodorant to buy it is annoying as hell.
My impression is that randomly stumbling upon porn was a lot more common in the early years of the internet than it is now. Sure, finding porn if you search for it is super easy, but it doesn't seem to be embedded in ads or links on unrelated websites like it was back then.
More options
Context Copy link
You know, I am not a puritan and don't really care if porn is available. But are we really supposed to be concerned that homeless people can't access free porn? Like their presence isn't making public libraries and coffee shops unpleasant enough as it is?
Yeah, the 'homeless person' concern is not the main objection, and I don't think anyone here's going to care what Texas' policies about low-cost IDs are.
That said, I think there are serious privacy and chilling effect concerns regarding this specific implementation and how it interacts with normal website management. The Texas law applies to any website run by a commercial entity (with a tiny number of exceptions), where more than 1/3rd of its content is 'harmful to minors', must do this verification or face sizable fines (up to 10k USD/day, plus 250k USD if a minor sees any banned content). Any web host operating in the United States that serves both adult and non-adult content, or even repeats content from its users, needs to do some pretty serious evaluations.
This wouldn't be too rough if the burden from age verification was tiny -- you take the precautionary principle to the max or divide the website and/or commercial entity -- but that doesn't seem to be the case. The plaintiffs here had a bit of a nut for a lawyer, but his claims that age verification could cost 40k USD for 100k users were plausible enough for a skeptical Texas court to accept it. That's steep but workable for a conventional commercial porn site; HB 1181 does not operate based on being a commercial site selling porn, but on being a commercial entity serving partially adult material. Even if he's off by a 'mere' couple orders of magnitude, there's a lot of websites and services where that's going to bring the risk-reward underwater, or outspend what sort of losses that a hobbyist is willing to lose out on.
So they have to get rid of the porn?
Whatever you think of porn on an individual level, it has ruinous effects on society. A chilling effect on porn is clearly 'good', even if a determined actor can still get it. 'Not having porn on hobbyist sites' seems well worth whatever inconvenience it causes to people with the weirdest hobbies ever.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is about teenagers, not homeless people. It is, specifically, an age verification law- yes, getting around it is probably very doable for a motivated young lad, but we can reasonably assume that the people the law is explicitly targeted at are the ones most affected.
It is a privacy violation with the purpose of deterring adults pretending to be an age verification law. "Think of the children" is as usual nothing more than a cover story. As Kagan notes, if it were just an "age verification law" and the impact on adults was as minimal as possible while still achieving the goal of deterring youths then the law would survive strict scrutiny and the majority wouldn't have had to twist itself to support lower scrutiny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t actually mean to care about the homeless here - it just seems like me putting in my Drivers License to watch a Nikki Sims pov video from 15 years ago or something more obscene and German may lead to someone revealing this to people in an attempt at something.
Replace me with ten million other people I guess.
Maybe it’s an unfounded fear but there’s tens of thousands of people right now upset that Leo went to a wedding - I don’t want to not retire in 20 years because I have a foot fetish, and on occasion watch foot fetish video, of which on occasion veer towards obscenity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, no, it hasn't.
Yeah, thieves suck.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link