That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
They are already private venues in this sense. Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act already enables this. Right now the "force" most social media networks feel is that they are advertiser funded. They moderate so high value partners do not walk away when they see the place is a cesspool. That's another aspect about how messed up all this is. Thus is just another avenue where the nation is descending into chaos.Blackhawk wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:22 pm So, how long until someone founds a 'communication club' that requires an application to join (which is never vetted, always approved) and declares it a private venue - not social media - and therefore not subject to any such law?
Can Facebook and/or Twitter just pull out of Texas completely?Dogstar wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:50 pm Likely soon to be headed to SCOTUS, the Fifth Circuit decided to take a whack at the First Amendment courtesy of a new Texas law targeting social media. [URL= https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1524 ... 01344.html]I’ll let Popehat explain how bad it is.
Seemingly no... The law says they can't geofence Texas out.Alefroth wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:44 pmCan Facebook and/or Twitter just pull out of Texas completely?Dogstar wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:50 pm Likely soon to be headed to SCOTUS, the Fifth Circuit decided to take a whack at the First Amendment courtesy of a new Texas law targeting social media. [URL= https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1524 ... 01344.html]I’ll let Popehat explain how bad it is.
Also, what's the legal definition of social media? Is YouTube? Is Octopus Overlords?
Disregarding the 50M limit, would OO be social media? What makes Facebook social media, but not OO? How come Twitter is unclear?stessier wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:29 pmSeemingly no... The law says they can't geofence Texas out.Alefroth wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:44 pmCan Facebook and/or Twitter just pull out of Texas completely?Dogstar wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:50 pm Likely soon to be headed to SCOTUS, the Fifth Circuit decided to take a whack at the First Amendment courtesy of a new Texas law targeting social media. [URL= https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1524 ... 01344.html]I’ll let Popehat explain how bad it is.
Also, what's the legal definition of social media? Is YouTube? Is Octopus Overlords?
The law says anyone with 50+ million unique users is subject to it. So likely yes to YouTube. No to OO. Twitter is actually unclear, which is amusing if it is excluded.
Oh yeah, from the law it is any site that generally relies on user generated content - so all those are in if you disregard the active user limit. An analysis I read said Twitter might be an edge care because of bots, duplicate accounts, and if it is world wide users or just US users. The law is really vague.Alefroth wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:47 pmDisregarding the 50M limit, would OO be social media? What makes Facebook social media, but not OO? How come Twitter is unclear?stessier wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:29 pmSeemingly no... The law says they can't geofence Texas out.Alefroth wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:44 pmCan Facebook and/or Twitter just pull out of Texas completely?Dogstar wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:50 pm Likely soon to be headed to SCOTUS, the Fifth Circuit decided to take a whack at the First Amendment courtesy of a new Texas law targeting social media. [URL= https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1524 ... 01344.html]I’ll let Popehat explain how bad it is.
Also, what's the legal definition of social media? Is YouTube? Is Octopus Overlords?
The law says anyone with 50+ million unique users is subject to it. So likely yes to YouTube. No to OO. Twitter is actually unclear, which is amusing if it is excluded.
You're telling me the assholes that govern Texas wrote a vague, stupid, retaliatory law designed to appeal to their brain dead reactionary base, but didn't think through the parts that would actually need to be enacted and enforced? Say it ain't so.stessier wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 7:17 pmOh yeah, from the law it is any site that generally relies on user generated content - so all those are in if you disregard the active user limit. An analysis I read said Twitter might be an edge care because of bots, duplicate accounts, and if it is world wide users or just US users. The law is really vague.Alefroth wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:47 pmDisregarding the 50M limit, would OO be social media? What makes Facebook social media, but not OO? How come Twitter is unclear?stessier wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:29 pmSeemingly no... The law says they can't geofence Texas out.Alefroth wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:44 pmCan Facebook and/or Twitter just pull out of Texas completely?Dogstar wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:50 pm Likely soon to be headed to SCOTUS, the Fifth Circuit decided to take a whack at the First Amendment courtesy of a new Texas law targeting social media. [URL= https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1524 ... 01344.html]I’ll let Popehat explain how bad it is.
Also, what's the legal definition of social media? Is YouTube? Is Octopus Overlords?
The law says anyone with 50+ million unique users is subject to it. So likely yes to YouTube. No to OO. Twitter is actually unclear, which is amusing if it is excluded.
Heaven help he has to feel even one tenth of the discomfort he is inflicting on women all across the country. This is why trust in this court is in shambles.And when you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder.
Alefroth wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:47 pmDisregarding the 50M limit, would OO be social media? What makes Facebook social media, but not OO? How come Twitter is unclear?stessier wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:29 pmSeemingly no... The law says they can't geofence Texas out.Alefroth wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:44 pmCan Facebook and/or Twitter just pull out of Texas completely?Dogstar wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:50 pm Likely soon to be headed to SCOTUS, the Fifth Circuit decided to take a whack at the First Amendment courtesy of a new Texas law targeting social media. [URL= https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1524 ... 01344.html]I’ll let Popehat explain how bad it is.
Also, what's the legal definition of social media? Is YouTube? Is Octopus Overlords?
The law says anyone with 50+ million unique users is subject to it. So likely yes to YouTube. No to OO. Twitter is actually unclear, which is amusing if it is excluded.
It's poorly drafted so ... maybe. The bill talks it defines it as services that allow users to share "information, comments, messages, or images." Are videos information? Are they simply moving images?Unagi wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:58 am He’s focused on the ‘comments’ section of YouTube.
What, with this ruling, would let YouTube censor the videos that are posted themselves. It seems like they would also be forced to allow for any video to be uploaded as well ?
LordMortis wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:18 am Holy crap, that WABX bumpersticker must be 40 plus old or more. That was my favorite radio station and the first one I remember going under. Now I want a TShirt of the guitar playing space dog with headphones from the TV ads because all my brainpower is associated with cartoons and music.
Yeah, consistently, the image of that dog can’t be found holding a guitar.
No court can have hearings to check the bureaucracy. That seems right.In 2007, Pankajkumar Patel, who had entered the United States illegally
with his wife Jyotsnaben in the 1990s, applied to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for discretionary adjustment of status under 8 U. S. C. §1255, which would have made Patel
and his wife lawful permanent residents. Because USCIS was aware
that Patel had previously checked a box on a Georgia driver’s license
application falsely stating that he was a United States citizen, it denied Patel’s application for failure to satisfy the threshold requirement
that the noncitizen be statutorily admissible for permanent residence.
§1255(i)(2)(A); see also §1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (rendering inadmissible a
noncitizen “who falsely represents . . . himself or herself to be a citizen
of the United States for any purpose or benefit under” state or federal
law).
Years later, the Government initiated removal proceedings against
Patel and his wife due to their illegal entry. Patel sought relief from
removal by renewing his adjustment of status request. Patel argued
before an Immigration Judge that he had mistakenly checked the “citizen” box on the state application and thus lacked the subjective intent
necessary to violate the federal statute. The Immigration Judge disagreed, denied Patel’s application for adjustment of status, and ordered
that Patel and his wife be removed from the country. The Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissed Patel’s appeal.
Patel petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review, where a panel of
that court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim. Federal law prohibits judicial review of “any judgment regarding the
granting of relief” under §1255. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But see
§1252(a)(2)(D) (exception where the judgment concerns “constitutional
claims” or “questions of law”). The panel reasoned that the factual
determinations of which Patel sought review—whether he had testified credibly and whether he had subjectively intended to misrepresent
himself as a citizen—each qualified as an unreviewable judgment. On
rehearing, the en banc court agreed with the panel. This Court
granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict as to the scope of
§1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Held: Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under §1255 and the other provisions
enumerated in §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Pp. 6–17.
Where it pertains to throwing people out of the country. Otherwise the bureaucracy should be dismantled. Oops that second part is just my second sight kicking in. That's still a little ways down the road.stessier wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:31 pm I haven't had time to read it all yet, but the summary is irritating enough.
PATEL ET AL. v. GARLAND
No court can have hearings to check the bureaucracy. That seems right.In 2007, Pankajkumar Patel, who had entered the United States illegally
with his wife Jyotsnaben in the 1990s, applied to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for discretionary adjustment of status under 8 U. S. C. §1255, which would have made Patel
and his wife lawful permanent residents. Because USCIS was aware
that Patel had previously checked a box on a Georgia driver’s license
application falsely stating that he was a United States citizen, it denied Patel’s application for failure to satisfy the threshold requirement
that the noncitizen be statutorily admissible for permanent residence.
§1255(i)(2)(A); see also §1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (rendering inadmissible a
noncitizen “who falsely represents . . . himself or herself to be a citizen
of the United States for any purpose or benefit under” state or federal
law).
Years later, the Government initiated removal proceedings against
Patel and his wife due to their illegal entry. Patel sought relief from
removal by renewing his adjustment of status request. Patel argued
before an Immigration Judge that he had mistakenly checked the “citizen” box on the state application and thus lacked the subjective intent
necessary to violate the federal statute. The Immigration Judge disagreed, denied Patel’s application for adjustment of status, and ordered
that Patel and his wife be removed from the country. The Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissed Patel’s appeal.
Patel petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review, where a panel of
that court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim. Federal law prohibits judicial review of “any judgment regarding the
granting of relief” under §1255. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But see
§1252(a)(2)(D) (exception where the judgment concerns “constitutional
claims” or “questions of law”). The panel reasoned that the factual
determinations of which Patel sought review—whether he had testified credibly and whether he had subjectively intended to misrepresent
himself as a citizen—each qualified as an unreviewable judgment. On
rehearing, the en banc court agreed with the panel. This Court
granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict as to the scope of
§1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Held: Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under §1255 and the other provisions
enumerated in §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Pp. 6–17.
Unless their goal is to move the fracture of the system forward, I’m not sure what they’re supposed to so. They don’t have enough votes to remove Thomas. Discrediting him casts further doubt on the validity of Court rulings, which isn’t helpful for them either. And in the off chance they torpedo Thomas, the right will be outraged as a chunk of them support the overturning of the election.malchior wrote:Can you imagine if the spouse of one of the 3 liberals was at BLM protests or advocated for anti-democratic action? I don't understand the passivity of the Democrats at this point.
This is definitely something to think about but in the end we're well past worrying about this IMO. They need to start seizing political opportunities. They aren't showing any fight and we are seeing support for Biden is slipping even amongst Democrats now. We desperately need them to step up and start leading. Even if they pick a few unwise fights. They have to take some risks.Dogstar wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 7:37 amUnless their goal is to move the fracture of the system forward, I’m not sure what they’re supposed to so. They don’t have enough votes to remove Thomas. Discrediting him casts further doubt on the validity of Court rulings, which isn’t helpful for them either. And in the off chance they torpedo Thomas, the right will be outraged as a chunk of them support the overturning of the election.
In this case, I think they have to unfortunately start warning people about how radical this court is likely to become. If they don't, they won't have the necessary messaging anchors to run on these issues. They also need to start pulling the media along with this idea by talking about it relentlessly. Otherwise, the media will just run with horse race coverage on court rulings and normalize it as 'partisan divide'.I agree that there are two completely different sets of rules, and continuing to follow the nicer path is a losing course of action. I’m just not sure what the goal should be.
I guess that depends on your idea of legitimate. If it's not so much a bother that one party is actively making it increasingly more difficult to vote, and you can ignore the previous efforts to overturn an election with the thought that that surely won't happen again, then yes, continuing to elect increasingly right-wing Republicans won't impact the legitimacy of elections at all.Little Raven wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:48 pm It there's one thing I don't think we have to worry about, it's a happy go lucky media. Every outlet from Fox News to NPR is busy screaming that [INSERT POLITICAL PARTY HERE] is an imminent threat to democracy as we know it and unless you vote for [INSERT OTHER POLITICAL PARTY HERE] this could be the last legitimate election you or your children see.
Indeed. "Both-sides"ing this specific issue (election legitimacy) seems a bit myopic.Dogstar wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:11 pmI guess that depends on your idea of legitimate. If it's not so much a bother that one party is actively making it increasingly more difficult to vote, and you can ignore the previous efforts to overturn an election with the thought that that surely won't happen again, then yes, continuing to elect increasingly right-wing Republicans won't impact the legitimacy of elections at all.Little Raven wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:48 pm It there's one thing I don't think we have to worry about, it's a happy go lucky media. Every outlet from Fox News to NPR is busy screaming that [INSERT POLITICAL PARTY HERE] is an imminent threat to democracy as we know it and unless you vote for [INSERT OTHER POLITICAL PARTY HERE] this could be the last legitimate election you or your children see.
The Supreme Court said Monday that state prisoners may not present new evidence in federal court in support of a claim that their post-conviction counsel in state court was ineffective in violation of the Constitution.
The ruling is a major defeat for two inmates on death row who said they had compelling claims that their state lawyers failed to pursue.
In addition, it will make it harder for inmates across the country to prevail on claims that they received ineffective counsel at the state court level in post-conviction proceedings.
The 6-3 opinion was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Thomas suggested that allowing such claims to go forward would cause unnecessary delays, and he said that federal courts "must afford unwavering respect to the centrality of the trial of a criminal case in state court."
"Serial relitigation of final convictions undermines the finality that is essential to both the retributive and deterrent functions of criminal law," he wrote. In his decision, Thomas emphasized the brutality of the crimes.
...
The three liberal justices dissented. In a stinging dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision "perverse" and said that the court had gutted precedent. The majority opinion, she wrote, "reduces to rubble" many inmates' constitutional rights.
"The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial," Sotomayor wrote. "Today, however, the court hamstrings the federal courts' authority to safeguard that right."
She said that while the majority "sets forth the gruesome nature" of the crimes, the "Constitution insists" that no matter "how heinous the crime, any conviction must be secured respecting all constitutional protections."
The inmates involved were not at fault for their lawyers' failure to develop evidence, and they should have been able to get into federal court, Sotomayor said.
"To put it bluntly: Two men whose trial attorneys did not provide even the bare minimum level of representation required by the Constitution may be executed because forces outside of their control prevented them from vindicating their constitutional right to counsel," Sotomayor wrote.
...
"It's hard to overstate how significant this technical ruling is for state prisoners trying to argue that they haven't received the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
"It's usually difficult, if not impossible, to show that your lawyer was ineffective without introducing new evidence, since that ineffectiveness often turns on evidence that wasn't introduced," Vladeck said. "But today's decision makes it impossible for prisoners to rely upon new evidence to prove that the lawyer representing them in state post-conviction proceedings was ineffective."
...
After Monday's opinion was released, their lawyer, Robert Loeb, said that the court's decision represents a "tragic loss" for his clients but would also have wide-ranging impact.
"The court's decision effectively closes the federal courts to many prisoners with extremely serious constitutional ineffective trial counsel claims simply because they were unlucky enough to have incompetent lawyers at every stage of state court proceedings," Loeb said.
You putting a meetup together, or...?stessier wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:57 am It's better to kill 9 innocent people than let 1 guilty one go free.
Sadly, I suspect many on the right would agree with that sentiment. Maybe not 9/1, but the closer you approach one….stessier wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:57 am It's better to kill 9 innocent people than let 1 guilty one go free.
If you were to phrase the question like that, I'm sure a large percentage of people would say it isn't better to let innocent people die to ensure no guilty ones get away.Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 12:54 pmSadly, I suspect many on the right would agree with that sentiment. Maybe not 9/1, but the closer you approach one….stessier wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:57 am It's better to kill 9 innocent people than let 1 guilty one go free.
Hell, I wouldn’t dare ask my Dad this question for fear of what his answer would be.
