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 -
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Is the law dumb and is Texas's war on porn quixotic? Yes, but the Supreme Court has had their say, so it's a done deal. Once you strip away all the culture war nonsense surrounding the law itself, this plays out just like any other case. Kick got sued, they didn't respond, judgment was entered against them on terms the AG could pretty much name. When, after 2 years, they neither complied not paid any of the $10,000/day in statutory penalties for noncompliance, the judge issued a writ to allow the Plaintiff to seize assets. If they want those assets back, they have to comply with the court order and pay the accrued penalties. Nothing unusual here. Were there jurisdictional arguments? Sure, and they could have made them had they responded to the suit, but they didn't. In fact, there's a few arguments they could have made that have nothing to do with the validity of the statute. They also could have settled with the AG. But when you write:
The judge in this case was the same judge who excoriated the Texas legislature in an order staying enforcement of the state's controversial private cause of action abortion law. I'm not saying that she would have necessarily ruled in their favor, but not all judges are shills. Especially since judges in Texas are elected, and most of these suits are filed in areas where few are likely to vote for someone who will do whatever Ken Paxton says. If you don't ask, the answer is always no. This isn't like gambling, where you can't lose if you don't play. Besides that, it's unlikely that they were out to destroy Kick. There are approximately 10 million porn sites that aren't complying with the Texas law, Kick is hardly the biggest, and the AG does not have unlimited resources. In a normal world, this case ends with a deal that probably has the AG agreeing to waive the penalties in exchange for Kick agreeing to comply by a date certain.
As for the indigence thing, if they're truly indigent then the domain name is worthless and shutting it down means nothing. But I doubt they're too indigent to fight this. Yes, taking it to the mat would be expensive, but unless they're true believers, they'll settle. If you own any kind of business, you have to accept the likelihood that you're going to get sued at some point. Most businesses pay for insurance, so it's not as big a deal as it sounds. I don't know what kind of insurance Kick had, or whether it would have covered this, but I doubt that a real defense would have cost them more than $25,000, and that's a generous estimate. Realistically, it's less than 10, assuming they respond, file and argue a motion or two, and negotiate a settlement that doesn't involve fines. Hell, skip the motions and just settle if you're really strapped for cash.
Does it sell out their principles to comply with a bullshit law? Probably. But as a civil defense attorney I can tell you that 100% of clients think that 100% of the suits filed against them are complete bullshit, even sophisticated corporate clients, even when the claims are beyond reasonable, and approximately 100% of them settle anyway. Because it turns out that $10,000 to settle the case is a lot less than the $10,000/day they'll owe if they don't settle. Yeah, getting sued sucks. But some companies get sued approximately every 30 seconds and manage to survive.
More options
Context Copy link