Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

LMMFAO at the notion that China would candidly tell the world, “yeah, we had a big outbreak at the Covid lab.” It Durant get much more trash poster than swallowing Xi’s cock out of the sheer partisanship ship Hannibal notes.

But, heh, yeah — no reported Covid outbreak clusters at the Covid lab. According to CHINA.

[Dr. Strangelove]

LMMFAO at the notion that China would candidly tell the world, “yeah, we had a big outbreak at the Covid lab.” It Durant get much more trash poster than swallowing Xi’s cock out of the sheer partisanship ship Hannibal notes.

But, heh, yeah — no reported Covid outbreak clusters at the Covid lab. According to CHINA.

Durant. Heh

Anyone at the statehouse looking a bit sweaty today? Totally unrelated to Householder….

[Dr. Strangelove]

Watching an old MST3K episode. Angels’ Revenge. It’s a Charlie’s Angels ripoff. Man, I’ve forgotten how embarrassing this flick is for some C-tier actors like Pat Buttram and Jim Backus. Peter Lawford and Jack Palance are in it too!

[lineygoblue]

Strangelove hates Mr. Haney.

Sad.

[iam416]

DSL:

With respect to the statehouse, I honestly Durant say if there's nerves. Right now they're too focused on their factional war that, in a veto-proof majority, impossibly gives Ds actual power. Heh.

Also, of modest note, the case against Householder was brought by the DJT DOJ and a Trump-appointed US Attorney.

[Hannibal]

Talent -- have you been following anything with Florida's new "Hate Speech" law? If so, do you think that it would stand up in court if challenged?

[Mike]

Who, exactly do you consider to be trustworthy on this matter?

Let me put it this way: On a totem pole of trustworthiness, Donald Trump is the bottom, followed closely by Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliani, et al.

I don't sign on to conspiracy theories in general, especially ones as vast as the "stolen election" nonsense. It requires too many people perfectly executing a number of tasks in concert with their counterparts in other states. And the people pulling off this incredible caper are Joe Blow volunteer poll workers.

It's why I laugh at the 9/11 "Truthers" as well. They think the same federal government that can't launch a fucking website can perfectly pull off a clandestine operation on American soil that results in thousands of deaths and devastation without a single person blowing the whistle or accidentally fouling something up. Way too many people involved for these things to go according to plan. It would be like an Oceans 11 movie with 2,000 people involved in the heist and everyone performs perfectly in secret with no trace of evidence or anyone having second thoughts and blowing it up. It's total goddamn nonsense.

Everyone hates to lose a close one. Whether it's the 2016 election, 2016 UM-OSU game, 2020 election, 2022 Arizona.... 2000 election... the list is practically endless and the losers always blame the other side for their loss. In the run-up to a presumed Hillary win, Trump was ramping up that whole line of argument in the summer of 2016! He was literally preemptively whining about the election being stolen before it even happened. And then he won. So then Hillary and the D's adopted the "stolen election" nonsense because it's impossible that someone could lose a close one without it being the result of some nefarious plot to screw them.

[iam416]

Hannibal:

I haven't. I've looked a little at HB 999 re High Ed, but not that.

I'm going to assume it's a limitation on speech, and proceed from there, and even if it isn't, this will be generall applicable. Here are the three questions you have to answer:

(1) Does it purport to limit speech that can be limited under the First Amendment. I think hate speech would qualify.
(2) If so, is the law the law OVERBROAD? Does it proscribe speech that is protected? Does it sweep in some good with the bad? It's very hard to be precise in speech limitation, so this is an issue.
(3) Even if it's not overbroad, is it VAGUE? So it may not technically proscribe protected speech, but it is drafted in such a way that people won't know what is or isn't proscribed and thus limit speech that is actually protected by the First Amendment. This is the Chilling Effect.

The first question is more of the lawyer/legal doctrine question and categorical in nature. The nex two questions, while legal questions, are fundamentally factual -- you're not taking a categorical look the law, but rather a hard factual look at how this particular law is drafted and operates.

The problem with "hate speech" -- as with all categories -- is there's such an intent-based element that the same words can be illegal/legal based on the speaker. And that's a real problem.

[Hannibal]

The law is essentially this -- it tacks on Draconian prison sentences to petty crimes that have a "hate speech" element associated with them.

The speciifc practice being targeted is the passing out of anti-Jew flyers. A group that calls themselves the "Goyim Defense League" assembles packets of flyers and tosses them onto people's lawns like their morning newspaper. I guess that this is technically "littering" since the people getting the flyers did not request them? That seems debateable to me too.

The state of Florida acknowledges that the actual speech on the flyers is Constitutionally protected speech. So technically they are not sending you to prison for five years for "hate speech'. They are sending you to prison for five years for "littering" (literally).

I have always been of the belief that selective enforcement of the law and disproportianate penalties based upon people's opinions or political biases is essentially making those opinions or beliefs illegal -- and that a *wink wink* *nudge nudge* "we're not really taking away your right to free speech" is not at all a legitimate defense of those practices.

Edit: I feel like they probably know this and they don't care if it stands up in court. "Hey at least we tried".

[Dr. Strangelove]

Worth keeping an eye on this. They just suspended trading due to some imminent "announcement". The bank's stock has been cratering. They are one of the country's 20 largest banks.

Silicon Valley Bank drops another 60%, weighs on the bank sector again (cnbc.com)

[Hannibal]

Let me put it this way: On a totem pole of trustworthiness, Donald Trump is the bottom, followed closely by Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliani, et al.

I don't sign on to conspiracy theories in general, especially ones as vast as the "stolen election" nonsense. It requires too many people perfectly executing a number of tasks in concert with their counterparts in other states. And the people pulling off this incredible caper are Joe Blow volunteer poll workers.

It's why I laugh at the 9/11 "Truthers" as well. They think the same federal government that can't launch a fucking website can perfectly pull off a clandestine operation on American soil that results in thousands of deaths and devastation without a single person blowing the whistle or accidentally fouling something up. Way too many people involved for these things to go according to plan. It would be like an Oceans 11 movie with 2,000 people involved in the heist and everyone performs perfectly in secret with no trace of evidence or anyone having second thoughts and blowing it up. It's total goddamn nonsense.

Everyone hates to lose a close one. Whether it's the 2016 election, 2016 UM-OSU game, 2020 election, 2022 Arizona.... 2000 election... the list is practically endless and the losers always blame the other side for their loss. In the run-up to a presumed Hillary win, Trump was ramping up that whole line of argument in the summer of 2016! He was literally preemptively whining about the election being stolen before it even happened. And then he won. So then Hillary and the D's adopted the "stolen election" nonsense because it's impossible that someone could lose a close one without it being the result of some nefarious plot to screw them.

You didn't answer my question.

There are people besides Donald Trump who think the election was stolen. Dinesh D'Souza thinks that it was stolen. He's not Donald Trump.

Who do you trust on this subject for information that you cannot verify yourself?

Do you believe that all claims of cheating are created equal, and do you have any methodologies for distinguishing between the valid claims and the invalid ones?

[iam416]

The law is essentially this -- it tacks on Draconian prison sentences to petty crimes that have a "hate speech" element associated with them.

The speciifc practice being targeted is the passing out of anti-Jew flyers. A group that calls themselves the "Goyim Defense League" assembles packets of flyers and tosses them onto people's lawns like their morning newspaper. I guess that this is technically "littering" since the people getting the flyers did not request them? That seems debateable to me too.

The state of Florida acknowledges that the actual speech on the flyers is Constitutionally protected speech. So technically they are not sending you to prison for five years for "hate speech'. They are sending you to prison for five years for "littering" (literally).

So, you can enhance penalties based on certain speech. That's ok. The Court has said that, in those case, you're not punishing the content of the speech, but rather, the underlying actions. So, it's ok to enhance penalties associated with racially-motivated violence (provided it's fairly drafted and applied).

The question, though, is if the enhancement bears grossly overproportional, aren't you then punishing the content of the speech and not the act? If you go from a misdemeanor to 20 years in prison, well, yes -- at least, IMO. I'm honestly not sure if courts have ruled on this specific issue, but I'd imagine there has to be a proportionality test to the enhancement.

[Hannibal]

The question, though, is if the enhancement bears grossly overproportional, aren't you then punishing the content of the speech and not the act? If you go from a misdemeanor to 20 years in prison, well, yes -- at least, IMO. I'm honestly not sure if courts have ruled on this specific issue, but I'd imagine there has to be a proportionality test to the enhancement.

Since they are going from a misdemeanor to a felony with a five year prison sentence, I'd argue that it's grossly overproportionate, and they aren't keeping it much of a secret that they are targeting the content of the speech. I might even put my foil hat on and say that they made it so over the top ridiculous that they don't actually want the law and they sabotaged it by making its intentions so obvious.

Interesting topic to me since DeSantis will probably sign it.

[Mike]

You didn't answer my question.

There are people besides Donald Trump who think the election was stolen. Dinesh D'Souza thinks that it was stolen. He's not Donald Trump.

Who do you trust on this subject for information that you cannot verify yourself?

Do you believe that all claims of cheating are created equal, and do you have any methodologies for distinguishing between the valid claims and the invalid ones?

I start with the assumption that all the claims are false until proven otherwise. I've seen nothing that moves me in the direction that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump through a clandestine ballot stuffing operation in Georgia and Arizona. I HAVE seen a parade of clowns that are embarrassing to listen to advance that narrative.

Who do you trust on this subject for information that you cannot verify yourself?

I start with my own common sense. So far I haven't needed much more than that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oof. It's crazy how fast a bank can collapse. Don't remember something like this since 2008. Stock price goes from $280 to below $40 in three days. Depositors panicking.

Silicon Valley Bank Financial in talks to sell itself after attempts to raise capital have failed, sources say (cnbc.com)