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.
South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
More states could follow, setting up a battle over the future of online speech across the country.
Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the right to abortion in June, South Carolina state senators introduced legislation that would make it illegal to “aid, abet or conspire with someone” to obtain an abortion.
The bill aims to block more than abortion: Provisions would outlaw providing information over the internet or phone about how to obtain an abortion. It would also make it illegal to host a website or “[provide] an internet service” with information that is “reasonably likely to be used for an abortion” and directed at pregnant people in the state.
Legal scholars say the proposal is likely a harbinger of other state measures, which may restrict communication and speech as they seek to curtail abortion. The June proposal, S. 1373, is modeled off a blueprint created by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), an antiabortion group, and designed to be replicated by lawmakers across the country.
Wait...........wut?
I find the potential First Amendment and Federal issues intriguing on this. Can a state criminally regulate free speech, and free speech over the internet which has Federal regulations and control issues separate from the First Amendment.
But does the government own the internet and internet providers?Facebook can only censor its own private work. This is state government efforts.
Facebook can only censor its own private work. This is state government efforts, hence Bill of Rights connotations.
On a jurisdiction basis I wonder how that would work for out of state internet providers. This is definitely not my bailiwick.
It's not the private Internet companies doing the censoring; it would be the government forcing them to via the law. Not hard to understand.But does the government own the internet and internet providers?
I don't think so.
Who said the OP was a Democrat and supports any of your Red Herring arguments?But hey, you kids always seem to get your way in court, much like Obama sued Arizona for trying to implement illegal immigration laws because the Federal government would not implement the immigration laws, but then when Trump was in office you kids created sanctuary cities so Trump could not implement their own Federal Immigration laws.
Being a democrat is like having your cake and eating it too.
Well, Facebook can't put you in jail. It can just kill your brain cells out of boredom.The shoe don't fit so snuggly on the other foot, now do it? Hardy-har-har.
Censorship is censorshipIt's not the private Internet companies doing the censoring; it would be the government forcing them to via the law. Not hard to understand.
Who said the OP was a Democrat and supports any of your Red Herring arguments?
I never said it wasn't. What exactly is your point here?Censorship is censorship
Censorship is censorship
They control the media and the platforms for reaching the populace at largeI never said it wasn't. What exactly is your point here?
Corporations are nothing more than government created entities to control the populace, much like the British corporation that was the East Indies Co. They even had their own private army, but all to do the bidding of the British Crown.Not really.
If a private company, say Twitter or Facebook, wants to practice censorship and only allow certain content on their sites, that's entirely their prerogative. They can do that because they're private companies. You may not like it but, hey tough.
The government practicing censorship has far more severe ramifications...
They control the media and the platforms for reaching the populace at large
Dress it up as privately owned all you want, but they are a public service for all nonetheless.
It's like the creation of Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac. These were government created entities, until the government could no longer balance the books because of them, because they wanted to throw money at Vietnam instead, so they just said they were now a private entity, so they could create more debt. Easy peasy. Keep in mind, these were archaic days when balancing the books mattered.
But turn the clock forward to the Credit Crisis, and we see government bail them all out, just like they were still government entities.
Or take the Fed. Here they are a private entity in name only. It is laughable. Such semantics mean little, just smoke and mirrors.
Corporations are nothing more than government created entities to control the populace...
We have had a Constitutional crisis in the US for a very long time with government picking and choosing laws to abide by or ignore.Do you approve of the proposed South Carolina law or not?
We have had a Constitutional crisis in the US for a very long time with government picking and choosing laws to abide by or ignore.
So pretending we only have a problem when the Left does not get it's way seem disingenuous to say the least.
