Testing Yet Another Bardfinn Digest: 2024-07-02 12:09 UTC through 2024-07-03 12:09 UTC

Comment in /r/reddit:

Main thread: Update to "Defending the open Internet (again)": What happened at the Supreme Court?

Do you anticipate Florida, Texas, or another like-minded state taking another swing at passing a slightly-reworded state law that would allow them to dictate terms to Reddit (and other social media companies) outside their state borders? > Or do you believe that this latest rejection of their efforts will cause them to throw in the towel?

IANAL IANYL ATINLA and I'm not Reddit's lawyer. This is just me, griping —

I read the Texas law, TXHB20, when it was proposed and when it was adopted.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F.htm

It has a section, Section 8, which I call the Hydra.

> Section 8. (a) … it is the intent of the legislature that every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word in this Act, and every application of the provisions in this Act, are severable from each other. > (b) If any application of any provision in this Act to any person, group of persons, or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons and circumstances shall be severed and may not be affected. All constitutionally valid applications of this Act shall be severed from any applications that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in force, because it is the legislature's intent and priority that the valid applications be allowed to stand alone.

Etc, etc. it has many other clauses in that section all to the effect of "if a court leaves so much as an atom of this law in place, we intend to use it, now and in the future".

IMO it's the real payload of the bill, and it's a definitive signal that they will not give up on this power grab until it's entirely disallowed.

That's what that section says: They're not throwing in the towel on this. Ever.

Comment in /r/AntiTrumpAlliance:

Main thread: I DISSENT

can someone explain in simple terms how the president can now "legally" assassinate rivals? I keep reading it online and in the news but I am wondering how could it happen really?

The SCOTUS decision by Roberts is widely grieved because it sets into sharp relief that there is no legal precedent to distinguish between what is an Impeachable High Crime and Misdemeanour (which the Constitution provides impeachment of the President over) versus Official Acts For Which The President Cannot Be Prosecuted (as composed as a class of acts under this new opinion), and so there is nothing in precedential case law that says that a given assassination order / action or class of assassination actions as ordered by a sitting POTUS is an Impeachable High Crime and Misdemeanour or is an Official Act.

The opinion also appears to make it impossible to take actions to determine which the given act is, as per Justice Roberts, anything touching the scope of official duties can't be introduced as prosecutorial evidence.

So people are saying this ruling gives carte blanche to sitting presidents to assassinate political rivals and dare anyone to jump through the hoops to hold him/her accountable for it.

Whether or not such an assassination would be legal is also an unsettled question.

Comment in /r/reddit:

Main thread: Update to "Defending the open Internet (again)": What happened at the Supreme Court?

I would be glad to know which concurring opinion you had in mind when stating that the signatory/ies has a poor understanding of how Reddit works.

Comment in /r/reddit:

Main thread: Update to "Defending the open Internet (again)": What happened at the Supreme Court?

>I would be glad to know which concurring opinion you had in mind when stating that the signatory/ies has a poor understanding of how Reddit works. > Justice Alito's concurrence has numerous errors regarding how Reddit works.

Thanks! I'll pull it to the top of my read stack!

Comment in /r/AntiTrumpAlliance:

Main thread: Justice Amy Coney Barrett says presidential immunity doesn't apply to Trump's fake electors scheme

Campaigning for office is not an act in the scope of official duties of POTUS. That seems obvious.

jesus fricking christ this is unhinged lmao, even moreso than Bardy

can this at least go in the bardfann hole?

Hey, I saw that you just joined rdrama and a group of people who hate me are trying to smear my name by calling me a date male feminist. I just wanted to let you know that it's not true. If you want all the receipts proving it they're right here.

The TL;DR is that I hooked up with one of the hot girls on rdrama, and since I was twice her age, a lot of the guys here who wanted to bang her got jealous and assumed that the only way I could have managed that was by raping her, even though she herself said both before and afterwards that it was all completely consensual. So now that you're the new hot girl on rdrama, I guess they think that I'm going to somehow seduce you into flying all the way across the country (or some crazy shit like that) to hook up with me and they're trying to talk shit about me to make sure that doesnt happen. I don't understand it either, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm a nice guy and I hope you'll look at the evidence and make up your own mind instead of listening to all the jealous haters.

Anyway, with that little intro out of the way, welcome to rdrama! The culture's a little rough here and you're probably going to get tons of requests to •show boobsU but if you talk to some of the women here first before engaging with all the creepy dudes, they'll give you some good advice to avoid stalkers and predators. Or (If you haven't been scared off by the rumor mill) you're welcome to ask me and I'm happy to help.

Just out of curiosity, how did you find this place?