124
Elon Musk’s Twitter bans ad showing Republican interrupting couple in bedroom
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
124 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10181 readers
101 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This law is obviously just an attempt to get a case that can strike down Griswold at the corrupt, illegitimate supreme court. They know it will get challenged, it's exactly what they want.
As a foreigner, this thing with the US where there are no laws for pretty basic stuff like abortion and contraceptives, just random USSC cases somehow divining these judgements from entirely unrelated stuff, how many layers does this go down? Do you guys have actual laws? Is murder actually illegal by law signed by elected officials, or is it just a random precedent that a bunch of unelected loons getting in the USSC for life can unravel?
Serious question, did the US actually outlaw segregation, or is it coming up next?
To your last point, Brown Vs. The Board of Education prevents racial segregation in schools, Loving vs. Virginia prevents state laws against interracial marriages, and Atlanta Hotel Vs. The US was the landmark finding that upheld the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically the clause that prevents businesses from discriminating based on protected classes.
So to answer your question at large, we DO have actual laws on the books that are supposed to protect historically targeted minorities, but at any moment these rogue malefactors could declare any one of those laws unconstitutional as they've shown they have NO regard for precedent.
Basic rights for people who aren’t white dudes were mostly imposed by court order. That’s the reality. We have laws, it’s just that those laws were written at a time when personhood didn’t really apply to anyone who wasn’t a white man. And if no one who you consider a full person is capable of being pregnant, you’re not going to think to put in a right to abortion explicitly, even if it’s a basic requirement for equal citizenship for the female sex, because women (and trans people) aren’t really people…and so on.
Edit: I realize this is mostly due to the weird semi-religious fervor Americans have for our Constitution and government system.
TL; DR: We’re running Modern Democracy 1.0 with a Frankenstein covering of patches, while other countries just upgrade whenever they need you.