"It inconsequentially violates the 1st amendment simply by making sites liable for their user's actions." INCONSEQUENTIALLY?? The writer just said that #FOSTA's violation of the 1st amendment really isn't a big deal. I'm pretty sure that's not what she/he meant. HOWEVER, now at least we're getting somewhere in terms of understanding the negative effects of the law: It makes sites liable for their users' (not "user's") actions.
#FreeTheInternet #petition (9/18)
@AphroditeVoid Kind of my point. 🙂 (Though there is such a thing - it's what the Supreme Court calls "de minimus," like a religious invocation at the beginning of a session of Congress doesn't "really" violate the establishment clause. But #FOSTA is definitely not de minimus IMHO.)
@ToplessNewYork Agreed and I was familiar with de minimus and I actually disagree with it and so have many of the justices most recently Justice Breyer, though not from the bench.
@AphroditeVoid I agree with the concept of de minimus, I just don't agree with where SCOTUS has drawn most of their lines on de minimus in the past. It's hard for a group that's mostly old, white, Christian males to see how things affect others when they don't feel affected themselves. Fish don't even know they're wet.
@ToplessNewYork Extremely well said and my position as well. I would also add that in the courts as well as both other branches our lack of representation from those that have known poverty and hunger has the same effect on a massive scale.
@ToplessNewYork There is no such thing as an inconsequential violation of the Bill Of Rights.