Shared publicly  - 
 
Did you hear the one about the New York state lawmakers who forgot about the First Amendment in the name of combating cyberbullying and "baseless political attacks"? Proposed legislation in both chamb...
12
9
Jon Matthies's profile photoKevin Algiers's profile photoMonique Tracy Stuart Troth's profile photoSebastián Teves's profile photo
23 comments
 
Whoa, Nellie! They've gone all Arizona on us? The craziness is supposed to be confined to the Southern states!
 
Wendy what are you talking about. What are you, a bigot when it comes to southern states? 
 
Why do I think "baseless political attacks" have a lot more to do with this than cyberbullying?
Walt B.
+
1
2
1
 
+Wendy Cockcroft is correct, the south IS extremely bigoted and primitive. So yes,you'd expect legislation that fits that bill from there.
 
True weirdness (the ultrasound BEFORE the D&C). I would think that most women wanting an abortion would have their minds made up no matter what they can see on an ultrasound. Why not simply allow the doc to put up a temporally-corresponding ultrasound from volunteers - and require the doc to explain what to the patient what it is they are seeing?

Though I can't really think of an ultrasound probe as any more invasive than what the docs use to clean out the uterus. And sometimes having an ultrasound during a D&C makes the procedure safer from uterine puncture - especially with variant anatomy.
 
Because the idea is to shame them. I was really hoping he'd come back so I could deploy the nuke.

It's funny, though, how many of them troll by calling me the thing that they are. Has Karl Rove been cloned? I thought that was illegal! Anyway, playing the victim when you're called out just makes you look stupid. The smart thing to do would be to engage with the argument and defend your position in a rational manner.

Some people manage it.
 
+Wendy Cockcroft I live in NYS, and am more familiar with state legislative idiocy than I'd like to be, so I wasn't just shooting in the dark when I voiced my suspicion. And given the NYS legislature, if the bill could be worded in a way to specifically target anonymous negative commentary about them, I'd expect a fair number of Democrats to jump into the mud with the Republicans.
 
+Wendy Cockcroft - yes, rational argument does seem to make more sense with adults. If abortion opponent's argument (that life exists) can swing an abortion candidate to adoption, then more power to them. I don't believe that forcing them to undergo a procedure is going to help that argument.

I won't go so far as to generalize about intelligence in the South or a particular state. Political representatives all over seem to have their head up their asses.
 
I think you're both right. Here's the text of the bill: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Text=Y

The part that matters:

A WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR UPON REQUEST SHALL REMOVE ANY COMMENTS POSTED ON HIS OR HER WEB SITE BY AN ANONYMOUS POSTER UNLESS SUCH ANONYMOUS POSTER AGREES TO ATTACH HIS OR HER NAME TO THE POST AND CONFIRMS THAT HIS OR HER IP ADDRESS, LEGAL NAME, AND HOME ADDRESS ARE ACCURATE.

ALL WEB SITE ADMINISTRATORS SHALL HAVE A CONTACT NUMBER OR E-MAIL 26 ADDRESS POSTED FOR SUCH REMOVAL REQUESTS, CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ANY SECTIONS WHERE COMMENTS ARE POSTED.

If I recall correctly, there have been stories floating around about trolls posting outright slander about people in office and that may be what's behind this. However, the law is too broadly worded to get past the First Amendment.

Is it me or are laws being very broadly worded these days? It's the reason we're getting all riled up about them. Over-broad interpretation by zealous law enforcement agencies or individuals could lead to all sorts of problems. The Founding Fathers were indeed wise in the way they wrote the Constitution.
 
+Wendy Cockcroft - whoops I think you are bleeding into a different conversation here. I did read about this and it is worrisome though.
 
It is, isn't it? Though it'll fall over the First Amendment for sure. Troll-bashing is the other thing I do, BTW. Methinks I enjoy it too much sometimes.
 
The judge is correct, the law is NDAA, and I'm not sure that the Tea Party is the answer to our prayers, even though I am aware that they tend to be Libertarian and have a wide range of views.

It's just that the prevailing trend is a bit too far to the right and that means the kind of paternalist authoritarianism that I simply can't be dealing with. #VoteTheBumsOut in November. Now that I can agree with. #OtherPartiesAreAvailable.
 
If there's one thing NY politicians are good at, it's taking a horrible idea and find a way to make it worse. Unfortunately, this "talent" seems to be spreading to politicians everywhere.
 
+Wendy Cockcroft I know a few orthodox Libertarians, and I don't think they'd consider the Tea Party to be fellow travelers. The Tea Party is mostly about less taxes, while the Libertarians are about less government, period. Libertarians do indeed have a wide range of views. It's probably neatly summed up by David Friedman's statement "There may be two Libertarians who agree on something. I am not one of them."

There may be a level of agreement between Libertarians and the Tea Party that less taxes would be a good idea, but I expect they would part company quickly on how that might be arranged. Among other things, Libertarians might cheerfully dismantle various pieces of government Tea Party members would like to keep, like mechanisms for enforcing this sort of social control.
 
Ah, thanks for telling me. I keep getting so many bits of conflicting information about the movement that it's easier to characterise them as right-wingers even though, the minute I've finished typing this, someone will hop in and yell, "No, they're not!"
 
+Wendy Cockcroft You can't keep track of the players without a scorecard. The "right wing" is sufficiently diverse that it includes people I wouldn't want to place in the same room unless I wanted to call the paramedics afterward.

Speaking personally, the closest descriptor for my politics is Libertarian, but I doubt most of them would consider me a member of the congregation, because I part company on how much of the Libertarian ideal is possible in practice. It's been the basis of an assortment of SF treatments, but they tend to start from the premise that a Libertarian society arose from the total collapse of a prior one, which is a higher price than I feel like paying.

I used to consider myself a moderate Republican, but the Bush administration alienated me, and the three ring insanity circus, complete with lots of clowns, that are the Republican primaries has broadened it. If we were seperated before, I think we're divorced now.

I'm not a lot more enthusiastic about the Democrats, and unfortunately, paternalist authoritarianism is pervasive on that side, too. Alas, the old saw "In a Democratic society, the people get the kind of government they deserve" is all too true. Enough people actually voted for the clowns to put them into office.
 
Agreed, on both counts. I like moderate Republicans because they don't scare me. My Pirate politics often get me confused with the Liberals because I'm not racist and won't blindly accept paternalism like a good sheep.

But I don't believe that socialism is the right way, either, because the paternalism there is exercised by the nanny state. I believe the people need to be empowered. This requires a robust educational system and #IPRreform. If we're not being "nickel and dimed" on everything we buy and use, we're more free to share ideas and culture.

The European Labour Party is just as bad, if not worse, than the conservatives are on #IPR and won't hear of anything that might loosen their already too-tight grip on the internet.

So what I'm saying is, a broadly cooperative movement is the way forward and people need to be more involved in politics instead of just choosing a leader from a bad selection and letting him or her run things for you. I think we've all notice that they run things for themselves and their cronies.
 
+Wendy Cockcroft The problem with Socialism is that it's about redistribution of wealth. That's all very well, but you must have wealth to redistribute, and all implementations I've seen tend to get in the way of creating wealth in the first place.

And the problem I've been seeing in the raucous debate about American politics and the economy is a truly mind-numbing ignorance about both on the part of the debaters. You can't solve a problem unless you understand what the problem is, and a lack of understanding is pervasive.

I just hopped over to the other thread and will look.
Add a comment...