The Thread For New Republican Legislation

[Gospel]

If laws are written to automatically label certain criticisms as libellous and defamatory, that may well be a problem for right wingers who like to label Democrats as Socialists, Communists or pedophiles. Faux Noise would have muzzle their lie barking right winged on air talent.

You forgot a very important detail. They don't believe the law applies to them. The law as it has always been since its founding was to control people not like them.

 

[Gospel]

Remember back in the days when Honest Abe wanted to send black people to the carribeans? It was an abject failure not because it didn't have the funding, but because his administration (aka America) didn't have their hearts in it. Frederick Douglass and other African American leaders weren't in support of that decision and I'm sure it's a sentiment in the black community that hasn't changed since then. I bring this up because It seems to me that's not very far from what fascists want today. Accept that the caribbeans are now American prisons and a blurry target down site of an officer's gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

SILENCED: Florida bill would severely limit criticism of government

Chilling developments down in Florida.

washingtonpress.com

Under Governor Ron DeSantis, the Florida legislature seeks to edit the Bill of Rights, taking away the right of the press to criticize the government.

A newly-proposed piece of legislation, Florida HB 991 submitted by Republican State Representative Alex Andrade would rip that freedom from citizens and the press, by reframing certain criticisms as defamation, particularly if they come from anonymous sources.

In fact, it deems an allegation malicious in the event that it comes from “an unverified anonymous report.”

...

Fordham University Adjunct Professor of Law Matthew Schafer says he’s never seen anything like this in ten years of practicing First Amendment law, and warns that if legislation like this is allowed to pass, the government will be able to use the threat of libel to control the public dialogue. (You’ll see some of his tweets about this bill below.)

Republican version of free speech and press.

Gitlow v New York (1925) says Florida can go fuck itself with regards to freedom of the press revocation. Granted, Justice Thomas is probably itching to undo all sorts of 14th Amendment issues, but as the Constitutional Law stands, Florida isn't allowed to violate the 1st Amendment regarding speech and press according to SCOTUS's decision in 1925.

For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press—which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress—are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.

I wouldn't trust the current Supreme Court to protect any part of the Constitution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not exactly legislation but I think it's relevant anyway:

What It Looks Like When the Far Right Takes Control of Local Government

Just don’t call them Christian Nationalists.

www.politico.com

 

[lpetrich]

Remember back in the days when Honest Abe wanted to send black people to the carribeans? ...

When Abraham Lincoln Tried to Resettle Free Black Americans in the Caribbean - HISTORY

On the night of December 31, 1862, a day before he issued the final Emancipation Proclamation to effectively end slavery in America, President Abraham Lincoln signed a contract with Bernard Kock, an entrepreneur and Florida cotton planter. Their agreement: to use federal funds to relocate 5,000 formerly enslaved people from the United States to Île à Vache (“Cow Island”), a small, 20-square-mile island off the southwestern coast of Haiti.

Since the early 1850s, Lincoln had been advancing colonization as a remedy for the gradual emancipation of the nation’s enslaved. While he strongly opposed the institution of slavery, he didn’t believe in racial equality, or that people of different races could successfully integrate. And unleashing nearly 4 million Black people into white American society—North or South—was a political nonstarter. So despite the fact that most Black Americans in the 1850s had been born on U.S. soil, Lincoln advocated shipping them to Central America, the Caribbean or “back” to Africa. “If as the friends of colonization hope…[we] succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land,” Lincoln said during his eulogy for statesman Henry Clay in 1852, “it will indeed be a glorious consummation.”

“Lincoln saw colonization as a practical solution to the millions freed by the Emancipation Proclamation,” wrote Jayme Ruth Spencer, a scholar of the Île à Vache effort. “Thus the proclamation would satisfy those who wished for emancipation of the Negro as well as those who feared that the freed slave would overrun the North.”

 

[lpetrich]

How a Movement to Send Formerly Enslaved People to Africa Created Liberia - HISTORY

The biggest question facing the leaders of the United States in the early 19th century was what to do about slavery. Should it continue or should the U.S. abolish it? Could the country really be home to free Black people and enslaved black people at the same time? And if the U.S. ended slavery, would freed men and women remain in the country or go somewhere else?

Many white people at this time thought the answer to that last question was to send free Black Americans to Africa through “colonization.” Starting in 1816, the American Colonization Society—which counted future presidents James Monroe and Andrew Jackson among its members—sought to create a colony in Africa for this purpose. This was 50 years before the U.S. would abolish slavery. Over the next three decades, the society secured land in West Africa and shipped people to the colony, which became the nation of Liberia in 1847.

Then about the founding of that West African colony.

Over the next 40 years, upwards of 12,000 freeborn and formerly enslaved Black Americans immigrated to Liberia.

The American Colonization Society was distinct from Black-led “back to Africa” movements that argued Black Americans could only escape slavery and discrimination by establishing their own homeland, says Ousmane Power-Greene, a history professor at Clark University and author of Against Wind and Tide: The African American Struggle against the Colonization Movement. Though some free Black Americans may have supported the society’s mission, there were also plenty who criticized it.

“They argue that their sweat and blood, their family who were once enslaved, built this country; so therefore they had just as much right to be here and be citizens,” he says. In addition, many argued “this is a slaveholders’ scheme to rid the nation of free Blacks in an effort to make slavery more secure.”

Some of the supporters of this effort were slaveowners who thought it dangerous for free black people to be present. Some others thought that slavery should be gradually abolished, but that these freed people could never live very well among white people.

As the abolitionist movement grew in the 1830's, its members expressed very negative opinions about this effort. The society came to advocate immediate abolition, but that made it lose support among slaveowners.

 

[lpetrich]

If laws are written to automatically label certain criticisms as libellous and defamatory, that may well be a problem for right wingers who like to label Democrats as Socialists, Communists or pedophiles. Faux Noise would have muzzle their lie barking right winged on air talent.

They'd likely scream about what victims they are. Yes, victims.

 

[ZiprHead]

Texas Republican files bill to ban almost all gender-affirming health care for adults—yes, adults

Thanks to SB 1029—filed by Republican state Sen. Bob Hall of Texas, who has a history of outrageous beliefs—there’s a considerable chance almost all forms of safe and age-appropriate gender-affirming health care will be made illegal in the state. And that includes trans adults. In fact, it not only covers both youth and adults but even nonsurgical treatments. The legislation also seeks to allow medical malpractice lawsuits for life against providers and insurers who cover gender-affirming care.

The bill seeks to ban public funding for any and all gender modifications, including vasectomies, hysterectomies, and castration. It also seeks to limit puberty blockers and hormones used to “affirm the patient’s perception of the patient’s sex.” (Meaning: Such care would still be available for folks born intersex, for example.)

In terms of possible malpractice claims, the bill seeks to establish providers as liable, including for the patient’s medical, pharmaceutical, and mental health costs post-procedure. This bit isn’t the most eye-catching, admittedly, but it’s deeply concerning because of the possible fallout. It’s hard to find safe and affordable gender-affirming care as it is. If physicians are worried about such a wide-ranging and lifelong liability, it’s entirely possible folks will just ... stop offering it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Gitlow v New York (1925) says Florida can go fuck itself with regards to freedom of the press revocation. Granted, Justice Thomas is probably itching to undo all sorts of 14th Amendment issues, but as the Constitutional Law stands, Florida isn't allowed to violate the 1st Amendment regarding speech and press according to SCOTUS's decision in 1925.

And we all know how important precedent is to this Supreme Court.

 

[Politesse]

SILENCED: Florida bill would severely limit criticism of government

Chilling developments down in Florida.

washingtonpress.com

Under Governor Ron DeSantis, the Florida legislature seeks to edit the Bill of Rights, taking away the right of the press to criticize the government.

A newly-proposed piece of legislation, Florida HB 991 submitted by Republican State Representative Alex Andrade would rip that freedom from citizens and the press, by reframing certain criticisms as defamation, particularly if they come from anonymous sources.

In fact, it deems an allegation malicious in the event that it comes from “an unverified anonymous report.”

...

Fordham University Adjunct Professor of Law Matthew Schafer says he’s never seen anything like this in ten years of practicing First Amendment law, and warns that if legislation like this is allowed to pass, the government will be able to use the threat of libel to control the public dialogue. (You’ll see some of his tweets about this bill below.)

Republican version of free speech and press.

Gitlow v New York (1925) says Florida can go fuck itself with regards to freedom of the press revocation. Granted, Justice Thomas is probably itching to undo all sorts of 14th Amendment issues, but as the Constitutional Law stands, Florida isn't allowed to violate the 1st Amendment regarding speech and press according to SCOTUS's decision in 1925.

For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press—which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress—are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.

I wouldn't trust the current Supreme Court to protect any part of the Constitution.

That's the job of the states, as far as the current Court is concerned, and to a lesser a extent, to the lobbyists who buy them nice dinners and stuff.

 

[ZiprHead]

Montana Bill Would Ban Teaching Science

Children K-12 could only be taught “indisputable” facts (if any).

www.loweringthebar.net

I almost started this by saying, “well, this is it—things can’t get any dumber,” but then I remembered how many times that statement has turned out to be wrong. What triggered it this time was learning about Montana Senate Bill 235, because if that bill became law, schools in that state would be forbidden to teach science.

Ah. I see that, even after all this time, some of you are still reluctant to believe me when I report things like this. “I’ve trusted you so far, Kevin, to the point that I was about to start writing you a series of large checks on a monthly basis. But now I’m not so sure, because this cannot be real.” But it is. Here’s the Montana state legislature admitting it, and here’s the text of the bill:

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Daniel Emrich (R)*, isn’t wrong to say that scientific facts should be “observable” and “repeatable,” but he’s plainly unclear on the concept of “theories,” as the preface to the bill shows. Theories are not “defined as speculation.” A particular “theory” might be speculative if it hasn’t been tested, but I think scientists would call that a “hypothesis.” A hypothesis that stands up to testing might get promoted to a “theory,” but that doesn’t mean it becomes “indisputable.” My understanding is that people are still disputing some of what Newton and Einstein thought about gravity, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tell kids about it. Studies have repeatedly shown it works, even in Montana.

My guess would be that what Emrich is really after here is stuff like the “theory of evolution” or the “theory of climate change,” without actually saying so. He is free to dispute those, but he’s got First Amendment problems with trying to ban teaching them. And I agree that as the preface says, children “must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory,” but legislators should too.

*My addition.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Montana Bill Would Ban Teaching Science

Children K-12 could only be taught “indisputable” facts (if any).

www.loweringthebar.net

*My addition.

He's got a lot of crazy stuff in that column, well worth reading.

And I'm sure this would only be enforced about the theory of evolution. I don't think they would even deem climate change a theory.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Montana Bill Would Ban Teaching Science

Children K-12 could only be taught “indisputable” facts (if any).

www.loweringthebar.net

*My addition.

He's got a lot of crazy stuff in that column, well worth reading.

And I'm sure this would only be enforced about the theory of evolution. I don't think they would even deem climate change a theory.

The early scientists were smart to call their work “laws”!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Montana Bill Would Ban Teaching Science

Children K-12 could only be taught “indisputable” facts (if any).

www.loweringthebar.net

*My addition.

He's got a lot of crazy stuff in that column, well worth reading.

And I'm sure this would only be enforced about the theory of evolution. I don't think they would even deem climate change a theory.

The issue is that the author doesn't know what a theory is or a hypothesis or a fact or a scientific "law". He just wants "facts" taught, which honestly I don't think is a bad idea. The trouble is, he is woefully undereducated in science to know what any of the above means.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What is needed. An essay written by a committee of eminent working scientist on the role and neseccity of theories in science. And then pass it around to get as many signatures from Nobel prize winning scientists. And another for as many working scientists to endore. Theory explains fact, organizes facts, and are tested for their correctness. These theoris are not guesses, not speculation. Evolution is not "just a theory" for example.

Once published, anytime ignorant politicians try to enact such foolish policies, they can be sent copies of this signed statement to these morons by concerned scientists and citizens.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is needed. An essay written by a committee of eminent working scientist on the role and neseccity of theories in science. And then pass it around to get as many signatures from Nobel prize winning scientists. And another for as many working scientists to endore. Theory explains fact, organizes facts, and are tested for their correctness. These theoris are not guesses, not speculation. Evolution is not "just a theory" for example.

Once published, anytime ignorant politicians try to enact such foolish policies, they can be sent copies of this signed statement to these morons by concerned scientists and citizens.

That'd just be the "establishment" hiding the truth.

 

[bilby]

What is needed.

An educated population, who elect educated representatives.

Rule by the majority breaks down when the majority are total imbeciles.

 

[crazyfingers]

Blaise Ingoglia bill would ‘cancel’ Democratic Party

'Some people want to have "uncomfortable conversations" about certain subjects.'

floridapolitics.com

A Republican bill in Florida (shock of shocks) would effectively ban the Democratic party in the state because 160 years ago, prior to the realignment where the Repubs and Dems flipped, the Democratic party was on the side of slavery.

Of course that pesky 1st Amendment will get in the way AGAIN. Florida Pols really don't get the first amendment. Some might conclude that they hate it.

 

[Gospel]

Blaise Ingoglia bill would ‘cancel’ Democratic Party

'Some people want to have "uncomfortable conversations" about certain subjects.'

floridapolitics.com

A Republican bill in Florida (shock of shocks) would effectively ban the Democratic party in the state because 160 years ago, prior to the realignment where the Repubs and Dems flipped, the Democratic party was on the side of slavery.

Of course that pesky 1st Amendment will get in the way AGAIN. Florida Pols really don't get the first amendment. Some might conclude that they hate it.

I actually think that bill is a fantastic idea!

According to Ingoglia’s bill, the Division of Elections would decertify any political party that has “previously advocated for, or been in support of, slavery or involuntary servitude.”

It would end the two party system. Both parties take donations from organizations with ties to slavery. As such, both political parties have been in support of slavery by accepting money earned VIA the blood of slaves. Both parties advocated and have been in support of involuntary servitude in our prisons.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The GOP under Bush lied us into a war in Iraq. The GOP should be banned because of that.