Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, you seem to be saying "yes", it's ok for the state to retaliate against someone, or some business, merely for opposing it.They are costing the State and taxpayers money to defend against their legal actions. The people of that state have every right to take away tax breaks that could be used to sue them and cost them money.
They did it by legal means under the Constitution of this country and this state. They have EVERY RIGHT TO PASS LAWS to protect their children.So, you seem to be saying "yes", it's ok for the state to retaliate against someone, or some business, merely for opposing it.
That seems like a very dangerous power to grant to government. It would allow, for example, government to revoke the tax exempt status of churches fighting to change the laws on abortion. I could consider that an abuse of government. Everyone, businesses included, has a right to campaign for changes to the law.
States are all laboratories of democracy. If a state choses to disagree with an administration more power to them and their citizens. It should be celebrated.In 2012, the Obama administration was embroiled in a controversy over the accusation that they had instructed the IRS to target conservative political groups for special review of their tax exempt status. When the accusation became public, the Obama administration went into damage control mode, denying that it happened and trying paper over it and "move on" as best they could. Did they do it? Were they guilty of targeting political opponents for state persecution? Maybe. Probably. The point is, they knew it was wrong. Or, at the very least, they knew that voters would think it was wrong - even Democrat voters.
Do we still see it that way?
During the Trump administration, Republicans threatened to repeal section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act in response to social media companies that had been censoring right wing content. Many people, on both sides of the aisle, saw this as political retaliation, that it was Trump "punching back" at the tech companies who spoke out against him, who censored his, and others' posts. But even then, they knew that it was wrong to do so as a means of gaining political advantage, that we shouldn't allow our leaders to target political opponents for persecution. Even Republicans who supported the proposal seemed to recognize this and worked hard to rationalize the attack terms of legal principles. They claimed it was an unfair, special perk, that should have never been passed, that doing so now wasn't persecution against Facebook and Twitter, but a principled change to a flawed law. That they were fighting for freedom of speech, and not just getting revenge on political enemies.
Now we have Desantis and the Florida legislature. They seem ready to throw off the pretense altogether. They've been quite open that they are revoking laws perceived to be benefitting Disney as punishment for opposing a recently passed law. Regardless of the rationale offer for revoking the law, the intent was clear. It was Disney's stated intent to fight the law that prompted the legislative action.
My question is - are we ready to endorse that kind of government? Should we allow government, local, state, federal or whatever, to punish political opposition with legal action? Is it ok for our leaders to "punch back" via the power of the state?
Reminder - this is CDZ. Trolls will be reported.
You're derailing the thread. Please stop. The topic is whether government should have the power to punish dissent, not their reasons for doing so.They did it by legal means under the Constitution of this country and this state. They have EVERY RIGHT TO PASS LAWS to protect their children.
We're talking about a business, or individual, disagreeing with an administration - and being punished of for it. Does that seem like a good idea to you?States are all laboratories of democracy. If a state choses to disagree with an administration more power to them and their citizens. It should be celebrated.
Are you saying their reasons are unimportant? You do not want a dialogue?You're derailing the thread. Please stop. The topic is whether government should have the power to punish dissent, not their reasons for doing so.
No.We're talking about a business, or individual, disagreeing with an administration - and being punished of for it. Does that seem like a good idea to you?
I'm saying I'm not interested in indulging the "groomer" witch hunt. I started this thread, in part, to get away from that nonsense.Are you saying their reasons are unimportant? You do not want a dialogue? Fascist?
You hadn't noticed that "Brandon" is most properly spelled "XIden?"I'm citing China as an example of a government that routinely persecutes political opposition. If we don't put a stop to the practice here, I suspect we'll end up like China.
No I'm not. As the other poster said.........you derailed your own thread bringing up China.You're derailing the thread. Please stop. The topic is whether government should have the power to punish dissent, not their reasons for doing so.
China isn't a democracy and so there is no political opposition. Cuba has none either. I used to be of the opinion that communism can eventually evolve into being socialism and I was almost becoming convinced that was wrong.I'm citing China as an example of a government that routinely persecutes political opposition. If we don't put a stop to the practice here, I suspect we'll end up like China.
This is a spin off thread where you were frustrated on this very topic. Florida is the main question in this thread..........and the reasons the actions were taken have everything to do with it...........The topic is not your obsession with sexual grooming. The topic is whether governments should have the power to punish dissent. It seems like are really bad idea to me.
Regardless of the excuse, granting government the power to punish opposition is a very bad idea. If we allow it, it won't end well.This is a ...
If we allow the abuse of children in our schools............it will NOT END WELL..........Parents will take so much and they will snap..........Regardless of the excuse, granting government the power to punish opposition is a very bad idea. If we allow it, it won't end well.
That is NOT the topic.If we allow the abuse of children in our schools....
I said nothing about grooming.I'm saying I'm not interested in indulging the "groomer" witch hunt. I started this thread, in part, to get away from that nonsense.
I will leave now...............but You started this thread for the very reason I discussed..........It is WRONG...........and you are more upset over gov't protecting children than the ones who are pushing this on children..........let that sink in.That is NOT the topic.
Please stop trying to derail the thread.
The irony is that, despite your incessant trolling, I actually agree that the citizens of Florida have a right to decide what goes on in their schools. That's right - I disagree with Disney. But they have a right to their opinions, and they have a right to campaign for legal changes that they believe in. To punish them, merely for disagreeing with me - would be a heinous violation of equal protection, freedom of speech, and sane government in general.I will leave now...............but You started this thread for the very reason I discussed..........It is WRONG...........and you are more upset over gov't protecting children than the ones who are pushing this on children..........let that sink in.
you seem to be under the impression that you can do what you want and anyone saying NO is evil.Again, the question for discussion is: are we ready to endorse retaliatory government? Should we allow government, local, state, federal or whatever, to punish political opposition with legal action? Is it ok for our leaders to "punch back" via the power of the state?
the left punishes dissent all the time.You're derailing the thread. Please stop. The topic is whether government should have the power to punish dissent, not their reasons for doing so.
