domain:shapesinthefog.substack.com
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
22hr ago
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.
Throwaway05
22hr ago
Lets list some of the categories of patients this kinda thing applies to.
-
Someone has a brief psychotic episode, has interest in killing someone but doesn't manage to do so. They have a 30% chance of not progressing into having any further episodes of psychosis.
-
Someone uses drugs or alcohol. While under the influence of drugs or alcohol they become homicidal or suicidal.
-
Someone has a medical problem like a brain tumor, dementia, or more reversible things like autoimmune encephalitis or hyperthyroidism. While medically unwell they become psychiatrically unwell.
-
A totally normal person has a first time manic episode with threatened or actual HI/SI. Outside the manic episode they are totally normal. They take their medication but still have a risk of problems. Maybe they have a kid and end up with sleep deprivation. Maybe the run a 5k and become dehydrated and their lithium metabolism is altered.
-
Schizophrenic guy who knows he is schizophrenic, takes a long acting injectable medication to make sure he doesn't forget. Symptoms are well controlled. Sometime over the course of his life his metabolism of the medicine changes and he ends up sick again (and dangerous).
You really want to lock up all of these people indefinitely?
Medicine and the legal system don't know with surety who will offend and who will be dangerous. So we try and be judicious in how much we violate rights. Summarily executing someone for being diagnosed with schizophrenia is a bit of an overshot. Locking people up indefinitely (especially when they have periods of healthy functioning that might even last decades) is also likely overshooting it.
It's also hideously expensive and drains resources that could be best used elsewhere.
They won't have guns anyway while locked up.
Why not start with less restrictive measures?
If individual autonomy isn't important to you (it certainly is to Nybbler) then the expense should certainly factor into it. How much extra in taxes do you want to pay to do this?
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
22hr ago
IIRC around the end of the first Trump term, we got perilously close to dueling national injunctions for "must continue DACA" and "must immediately halt DACA", which isn't a sustainable way to run a national judiciary.
gattsuru
22hr ago
I think the implication of the proceedings was that this was not true, clearly wasn't true, and the court didn't want to waste time and money on sorting it so used other procedural grounds to close the matter.
But from a due process perspective, that's an abomination. If the problem genuinely was that the court believed TB had a criminal history or other occurrences of mental health breakdown, TB has absolutely no reason, having read the court's public record, to actually go and find proof on those things. There's not even a reference to what better proof would be about.
((Admittedly, because it's quite possible TB presented perfectly adequate proof, given that the expungement process requires petitioners give permission for a full background and mental health record search, and the law requires the court to ask the committing facility. I don't trust New Jersey judges.))
And more critically, it's trivially resolvable. Assuming without evidence that the court would be crippled by asking for criminal records, it costs the judge mere seconds to write out that the plaintiff needed to provide them. Instead, if he doesn't die or run out of money or patience first, TB's going to back to court with a list of his medications in his pocket, proudly mispronounce every single one, and the judge will find some other excuse that doesn't really matter.
Most principled third parties read about these situations and fear some authoritarian judge taking rights away (which does happen) but the vast majority is "please give me something, anything to work with.....okay I guess you won't."
And if judges want us to believe that, they a) need to actually write it into the public record, and b) have public records giving normal people reason to distrust them.
IMO it sounds like you only like law when it supports your POV.
EDIT: I also find the nExT admiNiStrAtIoN / white genocide argument a bit funny because it was Reagan that granted my extended family amnesty and they're all white and hardcore Trump voters.
Hadad
22hr ago
Yes, I understand the strategy of letting them all in and then trusting the next admin won't be able to remove them. This is why I'm on Team Fuck The Law, Do What's Right, They All Gotta Go, and will accept any violation of law in pursuit of this.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
22hr ago
You may find from time to time a simple majority that says we should stop illegal immigration but you won't find a majority that believes that means we should pull people out of homes they've made in the US to deport them.
Hadad
22hr ago
We also give the crazy people guns, cars, and their bare hands.
If someone is unsafe, the correct move is to imprison them. Full stop, end of the line. The goal is not to maximize the autonomy of dangerous people, and that you think it is confuses me. If you're, again, one med cycle away from cold blooded fucking murder of an innocent person, you are not safe, you are a sedated predator. We should no more let you walk around than we would a grizzly bear.
Hadad
22hr ago
If you were a progressive operative, could you imagine a way this decision could be turned against conservatives once you control the executive again?
How do I get my guns in deep blue territory? The recourse there is the recourse here. If the answer is "you don't", that's also the answer here.
gattsuru
22hr ago
That's fair; it's definitely better than the parade of 'well, you can't kill me this way' or 'oh, but I got bad advice from a defense attorney that I ignored anyway'.
Throwaway05
22hr ago
It's an argument about giving crazy people guns.
We make an effort to restrict people's rights to the minimum we can, even if it results in bad outcomes sometimes. Locking away someone indefinitely (or like, killing them) is extremely restrictive.
Giving them some rope with which to metaphorically hang themselves but not too much preserves autonomy as much as we can.
Hadad
22hr ago
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.
gattsuru
22hr ago
I am not a lawyer, nevermind a class action lawsuit lawyer. The federal government's lawyer said that there were questions of typicality and gave a few groups, primarily based on the distinction between whether parents were temporarily permitted into the United States at the time of the birth. If he got his way, this would point to a couple different class actions...
But class action plaintiffs can prove they are typical members of a class by bringing more members into the plaintiff side of the bench; if you have plaintiffs on record as belonging to each of these groups, you defeat a typicality challenge.
This could be an issue for other universal injunctions, but I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on this one.
Hadad
22hr ago
Immigration is probably the single starkest and most consistent example of something where the native population and the government continually operate in opposition. The government is aggressively anti-we in this regard. People continually, across the west, say they want less, and their governments bring in more.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
22hr ago
Congress and the President are as "we" as it gets when it comes to law. Unless you want to bring guns into a discussion about SCOTUS rulings.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
22hr ago
With all due respect, when's the last time your looked for a partner? This isn't 1999.
gattsuru
22hr ago
The law's focus is about pornography to minors. A covered web host can be liable for ten thousand dollars per day even if they're never viewed by a minor, and the only way to host more than 1/3 "harmful to minors" material requires collecting identification proofs of age or collecting financial proofs of age (and a stayed requirement to post giant blocks of text). Likewise, someone wanting to request material from a covered web host must provide identification or financial proof of age, even if they're an adult, and even if they're requesting non-obscene-to-minors material.
Maybe those tradeoffs are worth it, but rational basis review doesn't do any such analysis.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
22hr ago
Show me the statute that would make Planned Parenthood ineligible.
Hadad
22hr ago
We did seem to feel a little differently about it decades ago, though, when we had labor shortages, low public entitlements, and loved rubbing it in the faces of communists that people were desperate to leave their nations for ours.
Who is we? Decades ago, we were fighting over it still. There's always been a category of Americans who want to dissolve states and borders and peoples, but it's not all of us.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
22hr ago
Democrats defected first with immigration laws
More accurate to say that it was a bipartisan phenomenon engaged in by Republicans like George W. Bush.
Hadad
22hr ago
It's fascinating to me how this line has been misinterpreted throughout this thread.
There's no evidence it's been misinterpreted. She stopped dating casually, and stopped birth control. This means she is open to family formation. Pre-marital sex that leads to a marriage isn't the optimal traditional path -- but it is a realistic one. Where do you think shotgun weddings come from? Plenty of traditional marriages began when a couple got pregnant, and realized "well, guess we best get married now", and then stuck it out.
Or, on the other hand, if she wasn't lying, neither would it be shocking if she refused to lie just to make it convenient for Henry to dump her for his long-term mistress. Henry (and those he had charged with getting this done) had little scruples about bending the truth; there was a lot of ground to be cleared before the second marriage could take place, and it wasn't all down to an inconvenient wife.
Anne Boleyn had at one time attempted to contract a marriage with Henry Percy, son of the Earl of Northumberland, and they were secretly betrothed. This didn't suit either of their families, or Cardinal Wolsey, so whatever arrangement they had was broken up and Percy was married off to another woman. When the king's marriage with Anne was to go forward, Percy was pressured to claim there had been nothing between them. Then later on, when it was incumbent to get rid of her, he was pressured to admit there had been a pre-contract before them. This was treated as legally akin to marriage, so she was allegedly not free to marry Henry.
Did the men accused of being Anne's lovers lie or tell the truth when they denied this? Was Anne lying in her letter to Henry denying that she had ever committed adultery? We are really in "he said/she said" territory now.
As well as Anne's past romantic/sexual history, there was the problem that Henry had taken Anne's elder sister, Mary, as a mistress before he met Anne. If Catherine was guilty of having consummated a sexual relationship with Henry's brother, thus making their marriage illicit, then the boot was on the other foot here as well: a sexual relationship between Henry and Mary would have created a pseudo-kinship making Anne his sister-in-law, as it were, and thus rendering his marriage with her equally sinful, incestuous, and invalid as Catherine's marriage with Henry was claimed to be.
So in the tangled matter of Henry's marriages, we can't know what was the truth, as apart from "what was the 'truth' the king wanted declared at the time?"
This is why I tend to believe Catherine. She was put under oath, and I don't think she would have been prepared to commit perjury just to get back at Anne. Nowadays we think of perjury as a technical legal offence and indeed trivial (unless you're caught out), but people used to believe that swearing false oaths would indeed damn you to Hell. So there wouldn't have been the attitude that "lying was a minor offense made as much for Henry's sake as for hers". Catherine could have admitted a consummated marriage with Arthur, claimed that she had relied on the papal dispensation and the advice of her elders that the marriage with Henry was permissible, and made things easier for her. Henry had had mistresses during their marriage and she had accepted that, because that was the way of things. (Something Henry later allegedly reproached Anne about, when she was said to have confronted him about taking a replacement mistress, that greater ladies than her - a reference to Queen Catherine - had had to accept this). It would have made things easier and more secure for both her and her daughter, Mary (and Henry was not above being spiteful to his own child, with alleged threats later of executing her if she continued to be obstinate about accepting Anne as queen), as it went for Anne of Cleves who was more complaisant or better able to play the game, agreeing to all Henry's demands and being well treated in return when he wanted to get rid of her.
We'll never know the exact truth, without getting a time machine to go back and see if Catherine remained a virgin after her first marriage. All we can do is judge the characters of those involved as to how they strike us, and Henry strikes me as a liar - or at least someone able to persuade himself that he was acting from the purest motives and not just out of personal whim, and that all those opposed to him were in fact not alone wrong but wicked and evil.
More options
Context Copy link