#legislative duties

[townpostin]

Former Minister Alamgir Alam Seeks Permission to Attend Assembly Session

Lawyer Files Petition in PMLA Court for Alamgir Alam’s Participation in Assembly Former minister Alamgir Alam has sought permission to attend the assembly session scheduled for Monday. RANCHI – Former minister Alamgir Alam has requested the court’s permission to participate in the upcoming assembly session on Monday. His lawyer has filed a petition in the PMLA court, which is set for hearing on…

[usadvlottery]

US Immigration and Customs Laws encompass a complex framework governing the movement of people and goods across the United States' borders. These laws are designed to regulate immigration, prevent illegal entry, ensure national security, and facilitate lawful trade and travel. They cover a wide range of topics, including visa requirements, border security measures, customs duties, import/export regulations, and enforcement mechanisms. Compliance with these laws is crucial for maintaining legal status, preventing unauthorized entry, and upholding the nation's safety and security. Various government agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, oversee the enforcement and administration of these laws.

[myopinionisimportant]

I want to dive into all the Alan Wake 2 stuff, I want to see what my guy (and his new friends and foes) are up to and check out all the cool fanart and and and

but I haven't played the game yet and I kind of want to play it blind and unspoiled because theorising about stuff in Remedy games is just great fun, so I'm having to show SO MUCH self restraint about this, wah.

At least work is busy and distracting!

[liberaljane]

Women's Not So Distant History

This #WomensHistoryMonth, let's not forget how many of our rights were only won in recent decades, and weren’t acquired by asking nicely and waiting. We need to fight for our rights. Here's are a few examples:

📍 Before 1974's Fair Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for financial institutions to discriminate against applicants' gender, banks could refuse women a credit card. Women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused without a husband’s signature. This allowed men to continue to have control over women’s bank accounts. Unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions entirely.

📍 Before 1977, sexual harassment was not considered a legal offense. That changed when a woman brought her boss to court after she refused his sexual advances and was fired. The court stated that her termination violated the 1974 Civil Rights Act, which made employment discrimination illegal.⚖️

📍 In 1969, California became the first state to pass legislation to allow no-fault divorce. Before then, divorce could only be obtained if a woman could prove that her husband had committed serious faults such as adultery. 💍By 1977, nine states had adopted no-fault divorce laws, and by late 1983, every state had but two. The last, New York, adopted a law in 2010.

📍In 1967, Kathrine Switzer, entered the Boston Marathon under the name "K.V. Switzer." At the time, the Amateur Athletics Union didn't allow women. Once discovered, staff tried to remove Switzer from the race, but she finished. AAU did not formally accept women until fall 1971.

📍 In 1972, Lillian Garland, a receptionist at a California bank, went on unpaid leave to have a baby and when she returned, her position was filled. Her lawsuit led to 1978's Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which found that discriminating against pregnant people is unlawful

📍 It wasn’t until 2016 that gay marriage was legal in all 50 states. Previously, laws varied by state, and while many states allowed for civil unions for same-sex couples, it created a separate but equal standard. In 2008, California was the first state to achieve marriage equality, only to reverse that right following a ballot initiative later that year. 

📍In 2018, Utah and Idaho were the last two states that lacked clear legislation protecting chest or breast feeding parents from obscenity laws. At the time, an Idaho congressman complained women would, "whip it out and do it anywhere,"

📍 In 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to safe legal abortion in Roe v. Wade. At the time of the decision, nearly all states outlawed abortion with few exceptions. In 1965, illegal abortions made up one-sixth of all pregnancy- and childbirth-related deaths. Unfortunately after years of abortion restrictions and bans, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022. Since then, 14 states have fully banned care, and another 7 severely restrict it – leaving most of the south and midwest without access. 

📍 Before 1973, women were not able to serve on a jury in all 50 states. However, this varied by state: Utah was the first state to allow women to serve jury duty in 1898. Though, by 1927, only 19 states allowed women to serve jury duty. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 gave women the right to serve on federal juries, though it wasn't until 1973 that all 50 states passed similar legislation

📍 Before 1988, women were unable to get a business loan on their own. The Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 allowed women to get loans without a male co-signer and removed other barriers to women in business. The number of women-owned businesses increased by 31 times in the last four decades. 

Free download

📍 Before 1965, married women had no right to birth control. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that banning the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

📍 Before 1967, interracial couples didn’t have the right to marry. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In 2000, Alabama was the last State to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from the books.

📍 Before 1972, unmarried women didn’t have the right to birth control. While married couples gained the right in 1967, it wasn’t until Eisenstadt v. Baird seven years later, that the Supreme Court affirmed the right to contraception for unmarried people.

📍 In 1974, the last “Ugly Laws” were repealed in Chicago. “Ugly Laws” allowed the police to arrest and jail people with visible disabilities for being seen in public. People charged with ugly laws were either charged a fine or held in jail. ‘Ugly Laws’ were a part of the late 19th century Victorian Era poor laws. 

📍 In 1976, Hawaii was the last state to lift requirements that a woman take her husband’s last name.  If a woman didn’t take her husband’s last name, employers could refuse to issue her payroll and she could be barred from voting. 

📍 It wasn’t until 1993 that marital assault became a crime in all 50 states. Historically, intercourse within marriage was regarded as a “right” of spouses. Before 1974, in all fifty U.S. states, men had legal immunity for assaults their wives. Oklahoma and North Carolina were the last to change the law in 1993.

📍  In 1990, the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) – most comprehensive disability rights legislation in U.S. history – was passed. The ADA protected disabled people from employment discrimination. Previously, an employer could refuse to hire someone just because of their disability.

📍 Before 1993, women weren’t allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. That changed when Sen. Moseley Braun (D-IL), & Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) wore trousers - shocking the male-dominated Senate. Their fashion statement ultimately led to the dress code being clarified to allow women to wear pants. 

📍 Emergency contraception (Plan B) wasn't approved by the FDA until 1998. While many can get emergency contraception at their local drugstore, back then it required a prescription. In 2013, the FDA removed age limits & allowed retailers to stock it directly on the shelf (although many don’t).

📍  In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that anti-cohabitation laws were unconstitutional. Sometimes referred to as the ‘'Living in Sin' statute, anti-cohabitation laws criminalize living with a partner if the couple is unmarried. Today, Mississippi still has laws on its books against cohabitation. 

[saywhat-politics]

Texas Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger, aged 81, has been absent from her duties in Washington, D.C., for the past six months while residing in a nursing home costing $4,000 per month.

According to the Daily Mail, despite being the longest-serving Republican lawmaker, Granger has not voted or visited her Capitol Hill office since July. Her nearly 30-year legislative career was scheduled to end in January.

[lemurchick]

Another 'wonderful news' from Russia for your consideration! This week, the BRICS forum on traditional values took place in Moscow. And it was fucking insane.

In short, the opening meeting was BRICS countries representatives verbally jerking off on how well they oppress or plan to oppress their people especially women. The only person who bothered to contradict this narrative was Egyptian female writer Doha Mustafa Assy.

I will translate some quotes from the russian article. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/7311174

Russia: "At some point the roles for women have begun to change towards independence and self-sufficiency. We, of course, love and respect our women very much, but we want them to pay more attention to their families, men and children. We do not want them to strive for business, politics, economics, power, or culture. <...> The main traditional value is the preservation of natural purpose, where a woman continues the family line and a man inspires her to give birth to children."

Pakistan: "Any traditional religion upholds and promotes social values and traditions. No father would want to harm his family. No mother would want to break up or disintegrate her family. This <rejection of family values> is deliberately imposed on us and promoted by some power circles”

Ethiopia: "In our country it is traditionally women who do the cooking, teaching children and other family duties. So the man's role is not as big as the woman's, and this tradition gives the man the freedom to behave like a child." (?????)

Uganda: [This country experience is “extremely important to the discussion of legislative protection of religious values,” emphasized russian politician Dmitry Kuznetsov, referring to the fact that in Uganda same-sex relations are prohibited, and in some cases violators face life imprisonment or even the death penalty.] “We did this to make sure that the country would be preserved. I would encourage countries to behave in such a way that the culture that exists in each country is not imposed on others.” btw Brazil and South Africa representatives didn't say a word here even though their countries legalized same-sex mafrriage years ago.

Brazil: "Marriage in no longer a goal for our citizens and the country has the highest divorce rate in history. Meanwhile, children are most often left with their mothers, with fathers unwilling to take part in their upbringing. As a result, many Brazilian boys are growing up without a father figure and 9% of male inmates in prisons don't even know their father's name. Shifting the balance in favor of women leads to the fact that the position of feminism is growing, and the number of people who identify as LGBT people is growing.” At the end of his speech, he marveled, “This is my first time in Russia, and I didn't know you guys were so conservative. I'm so happy, it's so impressive!” He also admitted that “the people of Brazil know nothing about Russia,” and Dmitry Kuznetsov promised: “We will come to you and tell you all about our saving conservatism.”

Egypt: As I mentioned in the beginning the only person who actively argued against this trend was Doha Mustafa Assy. She said: "We on the contrary has a struggle against patriarchy. Tradition and religion are not on women's side, they help men. A lot of women in Egypt ask for divorce only because they feel like slaves at home. He (the husband) has the right not to let her leave the house according to tradition. BRICS is India, it's China, it's Russia, it's Egypt. We are very different. And maybe what you are trying to do in Russia has already became a problem for us”.

To be honest I don't know what will come out of this forum. Maybe it's just empty posturing, maybe BRICS countries just sent people who had free time on their hand here as a formality. But I despair reading these quotes; twenty years ago we sent a singing duet posing as lesbians to Eurovision; ten years ago I was watching lesbian drama Blue Is the Warmest Colour in a full theater. Soviet Union gave women some attempt in an equal rights in fucking 1917 and we were the first country to send a woman in space. What happened? How has it turned this way? We are now friends with some of the most patriarchal countries in the world and with fucking North Korea. They are planning to remove the Taliban's terrorist status.

What the hell.

[inky-duchess]

Fantasy Guide to Constitutional Monarchy

As there are many breeds of government, there are equally as many species of monarchy. Today, we will be learning about the concept of constitutional monarchy and how we can write them within our WIPs.

What is a Constitutional Monarchy?

Constitutional Monarchy is a monarchy that is bound by a country's constitution, where the monarch doesn't rule but they reign. The government acts and runs in the monarch's name, at their pleasure and owes their allegiance to the Crown but they are the decision-makers.

The Power and the Glory

The monarch doesn't have the power to rule but as Head of State, they still retain certain powers and responsibilities.

The monarch has the right to:

Warn a Prime Minister/Chancellor against a decision.

Be consulted about all state matters, crisis and news.

Advise and encourage.

The monarch has the responsibility to:

Be impartial, no matter their true feelings

Support the Prime Minister/Chancellor in their efforts to lead the country

The monarch usually retains power in the form of the Head of the Armed Forces (though most can't declare war), has the power to dissolve a sitting government, has the power to sign bills and legislation into law, by the opening of Parliament and recieves diplomats and ambassadors.

Why a Constitutional Monarchy?

You might be asking, why would a monarch agree to all these rules and limits? They are the King/Queen, no? Shouldn't they have all the power? Easy answer, they want to maintain both their power and their heads. Most modern monarchies have ceded to be bound by constitution because autocracies come with as many dangers as they come with benefits. A constitutional monarchy is often chosen to protect the monarchy, ensure it's longevity, appease the public and modernise to fit with changing opinions. The monarchy that doesn't adapt, doesn't survive. If a monarch truly believes in the role of monarchy and their duty, they would do well to consider how much they are willing to sacrifice in its name. It also provides a unifying figure for the country to look up to without the divide of political opinion and creed.

Constitutional Monarchies Across the World

The UK: The monarch's role is ceremonial, they open Parliament, grant Royal approval to bills and meet with the Prime Minister to be informed of the government's doings.

Sweden: The Swedish monarchy is symbolic only.

Japan: The Emperor of Japan has no governing powers, he recieves foreign dignitaries, participates in traditional events and rituals.

Spain: The Spanish monarchy has the power to dissolve government, summon government and appoint the Prime Minister.

Norway: Norway's monarchy is heavily symbolic but the monarch resides over the Council of State, signs official documents and undertakes state visits.

Belgium: The Belgian monarchy is also ceremonial but has the power to appoint the formateur who leads coalition negotiations, signs laws but these acts must require the signature of a government minister.

The Netherlands: The Dutch monarch has a ceremonial role, with the Prime Minister and Parliament holding political power. The monarch’s duties include signing bills into law and representing the country at official events

Thailand: The Thai monarch has a cultural and ceremonial role but politics is the business of the elected government.

Monaco: The Principality of Monaco is an exceptional version of a constitutional monarchy. While the Prince is bound by the constitution, he had the power to appoint the Minister of State and the Government Council. These bodies are directly accountable to the Prince. The Prince has the right to propose laws to the National Council, veto laws and formally enacts the laws approved by the National Council.

Denmark: The monarch appoints the Prime Minister who leads Folketing, they sign all acts passed by the government which must be countersigned by a Cabinet Minister and participates in state ceremonies.

Lesotho: This monarchy is ceremonial too but the King has the power to appoint the Prime Minister and other officials (on governmental advice).

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Law-Related Vocabulary

for your poem/story (pt. 1/4)

Acquiescence - acceptance, compliance, or submitting tacitly or passively

Act of God - an extraordinary natural event (as a flood or earthquake) that cannot be reasonably foreseen or prevented

Amicus curiae - friend of the court

Bad faith - intentional deception, dishonesty, or failure to meet an obligation or duty

Bill of pains and penalties - a legislative act formerly permitted that imposed a punishment less severe than death without benefit of a judicial trial

Blackacre - a fictitious piece of real property

Causa mortis - made or done in contemplation of one's impending death

Cool state of blood - an emotional condition in which a person's anger or passion is not great enough to overcome his or her faculties or ability to reason—often used in statutory definitions of murder

Depraved-heart murder - a murder that is the result of an act which is dangerous to others and shows that the perpetrator has a depraved mind and no regard for human life

Dereliction - an intentional abandonment

Executrix - a woman who is an executor

Expunge - to cancel out or destroy completely

Extraordinary remedy - a procedure for obtaining judicial relief allowed when no other method is available, appropriate, or useful

Ferae naturae - wild by nature; not usually tamed

Fighting words - words which by their very utterance are likely to inflict harm on or provoke a breach of the peace by the average person to whom they are directed

Fifth degree - the grade sometimes given to the least serious form of a crime

Fruit of the poisonous tree - evidence that is inadmissible under an evidentiary exclusionary rule because it was derived from or gathered during an illegal action

Gift causa mortis - a gift of especially personal property made in contemplation of impending death that is delivered with the intent that the gift take effect only in the event of the donor's death and that it be revoked in the event of survival

Hot blood - heat of passion; an agitated state of mind (as anger or terror) prompted by provocation sufficient to overcome the ability of a reasonable person to reflect on and control his or her actions

Inveigle - to lure by false representations or other deceit

Lucri causa - intent to obtain a gain

Mystic will - in the civil law of Louisiana; a will signed, sealed, witnessed, and notarized according to statutory procedure; called also mystic testament, secret testament

Naked promise - gratuitous promise

Obligor - one who is bound by an obligation to another

Penumbra - an area within which distinction or resolution is difficult or uncertain

Quaere - question—usually used to introduce a question

Recusant - refusing to submit to authority

Solatium - compensation for grief or wounded feelings (as from the wrongful death of a relative)

Third degree - the grade given to the third most serious forms of crimes

Uberrimae fidei - of the utmost or perfect good faith

Vitiate - to make ineffective

Word of art - a word having a particular meaning in a field; also called "term of art"

X - a mark used in place of a signature when the maker is incapable of signing his or her name (as because of illiteracy or a physical ailment)

Year-and-a-day rule - a common-law rule that relieves a defendant of responsibility for homicide if the victim lives for more than one year and one day after being injured (Note: This rule dates from at least 1278, and is frequently criticized as anachronistic since modern medicine makes pinpointing cause of death easier than it was formerly. However, the rule still exists or is reflected in the law of some jurisdictions.)

Zone of danger - the area within which one is in actual physical peril from the negligent conduct of another person

If any of these words make their way into your next poem/story, please tag me, or leave a link in the replies. I would love to read them!

More: Law-Related Words ⚜ Word Lists

[modern-heresy]

(Working with someone you generally disagree with to pass legislation you do agree with will not make you a filthy sinner, or give you cooties or whatever the idpol purists think happens)

If a radical feminist politician is unable to implement key principles (such as anti-prostitution laws, anti self-ID measures etc) in law due to working with the left, would it be a better strategy for her to collaborate with the right instead?

Yes (i'm a leftist)

No (leftist)

Yes (right wing)

No (right wing)

Yes (centrist)

No (centrist)

Yes (politically homeless)

No (politically homeless)

-🐌

[unrelaxing]

From a country where voting is not a choice, but a duty, it's interesting seeing American discourse every four years on whether or not voting matters. This year there's an added layer, because Joe Biden has been supporting Israel's genocide against Palestine. Now there's a pervading sentiment - both in and out of the US - that voting for Joe Biden supports Palestinian genocide, and it's an American's moral duty to withhold their vote in support of Palestine.

I guess the question I ask is: how is withholding your vote effective activism?

If you don't vote, and Trump wins, he says he will deport pro-Palestine demonstrators. He says he supports Israel's right to defend itself. If you vote independent, and Trump wins the same thing happens.

If Biden wins, he will continue his support of Israel.

So: Is voting really the battleground for the Palestinian genocide, when either outcome leads down the same road?

And what other battles are being fought in this presidential race?

Gun laws - Biden passed "the most significant gun safety legislation in more than two decades", the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It includes enhanced background checks for gun purchasers, and prohibits individuals convicted of domestic violence towards a romantic partner from purchasing a gun (wherein the past a 'boyfriend loophole' had existed, wherein the law only applied if an individual was convicted of domestic violence against a spouse or cohabitant). Trump has promised to overturn Biden's new laws.

Healthcare - Uninsured Americans are at an all-time low under Biden's administration, with only 7.6% of Americans being uninsured in the second quarter of 2023. The number of people who signed up to Obamacare in 2024 is at 21.3 million - and Trump plans to repeal it.

Climate change - Biden's Inflation Reduction Act invests 300 billion dollars towards clean energy. Electricity generation from renewable energy sources — including wind, solar and hydropower — surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time in 2022, making it the second-biggest source behind natural gas generation. At a recent dinner with oil executives and lobbyists, the Republican promised to eliminate Mr Biden's new climate rules and environmental regulations if they donated $1bn to his campaign.

Much has been said about Trump's second term beyond the above three points. @batboyblog posted a very clear and concise graphic on Trump's plans for his second term.

The BBC has also posted about Trump's plans for his second term, which I'll screenshot:

Trump is now a felon, but I was really shocked to learn about how little impact this has on his ability to run as president. His supporters are likely to stay by his side, because they believe in these policies.

Biden does not have the same luxury. I don't think he should have the same luxury. Still, I feel like it's important to point out that Trump and Biden's opinions on Israel and Palestine align, but there are a plethora of other issues they do not align on. As a voter, as an activist, when given two political parties, why would you choose based on the similarities as opposed to the differences?

Ways to help Gaza.

Vetted gofundmes.

Other links to help Palestine.

[king-wens-king]

no NO bc SHHHH SHHHH. Rewatching the movie again knowing the context of nimona's backstory just HIT In such a fresh way. SHHHH NO bc. shes been living like this for a THOUSAND years. She is an immortal being and she has seen this kingdom be built from the ground up for the entirety of its one thousand years. And the only reason it exists at all, the iron fist of the institute and the knight's duty to protect inhbaitants inside the wall against monsters outside of it... is because of her. Gloreth's will to create a league of knights only exists because of NIMONA. And a thousand years she stands surrounded by all this as it grows bigger and bigger. An entire kingdom built just so it can protect a threat that doesnt exist outside of HER. In a world where entire legislations and bills are made to target a small minority, where groups of adults agree to push a rule just so that the ONLY transgender kid in a small town cant play the sport they want - I cannot see how it isn't similar at all. This shot hurts me so much because it is us settling into the realization that the world has expanded so far beyond nimona all because it will never want her. A thousand years of this.... why shouldn't she finally give in?

[liberalsarecool]

Indoctrination via corporate media.

Legislating corporate welfare written by right-wing lobbyists/Chamber of Commerce is Republican abdication of duty.

Raise corporate tax rates. End the loopholes. The profits need to go to more than CEOs and shareholders.

Trickle down is the biggest failure of all time. As predicted by everyone at all times.

[thoughtportal]

For those living in one of the 22 states where abortion is banned or heavily restricted, the internet can be a lifeline. It has essential information on where and how to access care, links to abortion funds, and guidance on ways to navigate potential legal risks. Activists use the internet to organize and build community, and reproductive healthcare organizations rely on it to provide valuable information and connect with people in need.

But both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are now actively pushing for federal legislation that could cut youth off from these vital healthcare resources and stifle online abortion information for adults and kids alike.

This summer, the U.S. Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that would grant the federal government and state attorneys general the power to restrict online speech they find objectionable in a misguided and ineffective attempt to protect kids online. A number of organizations have already sounded the alarm on KOSA’s danger to online LGBTQ+ content, but the hazards of the bill don’t stop there.

KOSA puts abortion seekers at risk. It could easily lead to censorship of vital and potentially life-saving information about sexual and reproductive healthcare. And by age-gating the internet, it could result in websites requiring users to submit identification, undermining the ability to remain anonymous while searching for abortion information online.

Abortion Information Censored

As EFF has repeatedly warned, KOSA will stifle online speech. It gives government officials the dangerous and unconstitutional power to decide what types of content can be shared and read online. Under one of its key censorship provisions, KOSA would create what the bill calls a “duty of care.” This provision would require websites, apps, and online platforms to comply with a vague and overbroad mandate to prevent and mitigate “harm to minors” in all their “design features.”

KOSA contains a long list of harms that websites have a duty to protect against, including emotional disturbance, acts that lead to bodily harm, and online harassment, among others. The list of harms is open for interpretation. And many of the harms are so subjective that government officials could claim any number of issues fit the bill.

This opens the door for political weaponization of KOSA—including by anti-abortion officials. KOSA is ambiguous enough to allow officials to easily argue that its mandate includes sexual and reproductive healthcare information. They could, for example, claim that abortion information causes emotional disturbance or death, or could lead to “sexual exploitation and abuse.” This is especially concerning given the anti-abortion movement’s long history of justifying abortion restrictions by claiming that abortions cause mental health issues, including depression and self-harm (despite credible research to the contrary).

As a result, websites could be forced to filter and block such content for minors, despite the fact that minors can get pregnant and are part of the demographic most likely to get their news and information from social media platforms. By blocking this information, KOSA could cut off young people’s access to potentially life-saving sexual and reproductive health resources. So much for protecting kids.

KOSA’s expansive and vague censorship requirements will also affect adults. To avoid liability and the cost and hassle of litigation, websites and platforms are likely to over-censor potentially covered content, even if that content is otherwise legal. This could lead to the removal of important reproductive health information for all internet users, adults included.

A Tool For Anti-Choice Officials

It’s important to remember that KOSA’s “duty of care” provision would be defined and enforced by the presidential administration in charge, including any future administration that is hostile to reproductive rights. The bill grants the Federal Trade Commission, majority-controlled by the President’s party, the power to develop guidelines and to investigate or sue any websites or platforms that don’t comply. It also grants the Executive Branch the power to form a Kids Online Safety Council to further identify “emerging or current risks of harms to minors associated with online platforms.”

Meanwhile, KOSA gives state attorneys general, including those in abortion-restrictive states, the power to sue under its other provisions, many of which intersect with the “duty of care.” As EFF has argued, this gives state officials a back door to target and censor content they don’t like, including abortion information.

It’s also directly foreseeable that anti-abortion officials would use KOSA in this way. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), has touted KOSA as a way to censor online content on social issues, claiming that children are being “indoctrinated” online. The Heritage Foundation, a politically powerful organization that espouses anti-choice views, also has its eyes on KOSA. It has been lobbying lawmakers to pass the bill and suggesting that a future administration could fill the Kids Online Safety Council with “representatives who share pro-life values.”

This all comes at a time when efforts to censor abortion information online are at a fever pitch. In abortion-restrictive states, officials have already been eagerly attempting to erase abortion from the internet. Lawmakers in both South Carolina and Texas have introduced bills to censor online abortion information, though neither effort has yet to be successful. The National Right to Life Committee has also created a model abortion law aimed at restricting abortion rights in a variety of ways, including digital access to information.

KOSA Hurts Anonymity Online

KOSA will also push large and important parts of the internet behind age gates. In order to determine which users are minors, online services will likely impose age verification systems, which require everyone—both adults and minors—to verify their age by providing identifying information, oftentimes including government-issued ID or other personal records.

This is deeply problematic for maintaining access to reproductive care. Age verification undermines our First Amendment right to remain anonymous online by requiring users to confirm their identity before accessing webpages and information. It would chill users who do not wish to share their identity from accessing or sharing online abortion resources, and put others’ identities at increased risk of exposure.

In a post-Roe United States, in which states are increasingly banning, restricting, and prosecuting abortions, the ability to anonymously seek and share abortion information online is more important than ever. For people living in abortion-restrictive states, searching and sharing abortion information online can put you at risk. There have been multiple instances of law enforcement agencies using digital evidence, including internet history, in abortion-related criminal cases. We’ve also seen an increase in online harassment and doxxing of healthcare professionals, even in more abortion-protective states.

Because of this, many organizations, including EFF, have tried to help people take steps to protect privacy and anonymity online. KOSA would undercut those efforts. While it’s true that our online ecosystem is already rich with private surveillance, age verification adds another layer of mass data collection. Online ID checks require adults to upload data-rich, government-issued identifying documents to either the website or a third-party verifier, creating a potentially lasting record of their visit to the website.

For abortion seekers taking steps to protect their anonymity and avoid this pervasive surveillance, this would make things all the more difficult. Using a public computer or creating anonymous profiles on social networks won’t keep you safe if you have to upload ID to access the information you need.

We Can Still Stop KOSA From Passing

KOSA has not yet passed the House, so there’s still time to stop it. But the Senate vote means that the House could bring it up for a vote at any time, and the House has introduced its own similarly flawed version of KOSA. If we want to protect access to abortion information online, we must organize now to stop KOSA from passing.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

ANNA BONESTEEL AND EVAN GREER at Them:

Pride Month is over. As the “LOVE IS LOVE” banners come down and companies lose the rainbow gradients from their logos, we’re faced with a painful truth: LGBTQ+ people, especially the most marginalized among us, are in the crosshairs of a queerphobic backlash that is targeting our health, our histories, and especially our youth. And things are getting worse, not better. According to NPR, half of all US states now ban gender-affirming care for people under 18. Eight states now censor LGBTQ+ issues from school curricula via “Don’t Say Gay” laws, and two more states are considering similar legislation this year. The number-one book targeted for censorship is a graphic novel memoir about gender identity.

This June, Democratic lawmakers marched in Pride parades and spoke on stages, vowing to protect our community and fight back against legislative attacks on queer youth. But some of these same lawmakers are actively pushing federal legislation that would cut LGBTQ+ youth off from resources, information, and communities that can save their lives. Currently, 38 Democratic senators support the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that is vocally opposed by many queer and trans youth, along with a coalition of human rights and LGBTQ+ groups. As a queer- and trans-led advocacy group focused on the ways technology impacts human rights, our organization, Fight for the Future, has seen bills like KOSA before: misguided internet bills that try to solve real problems, but ultimately throw marginalized people under the bus by expanding censorship and surveillance rather than addressing corporate abuses. KOSA’s most obvious predecessor is SESTA/FOSTA, a Trump-era bill that its supporters claimed would clamp down on online sex trafficking. Instead, the bill did almost nothing to accomplish its goal, and has actively harmed LGBTQ+ people and sex workers whose harm-reduction resources were decimated by the subsequent crackdown on online speech.

Like SESTA/FOSTA, some of KOSA’s supporters have positive intent. Many lawmakers and organizations support KOSA because they are concerned about real harms caused by Big Tech, like addictive design features and manipulative algorithms. But, also like SESTA/FOSTA, KOSA doesn’t touch the core issues with Big Tech’s extractive, exploitative business model. Instead, KOSA relies on a “duty of care” model that will pressure social platforms to suppress any speech the government is willing to argue makes kids “depressed” or “anxious.”

Under KOSA, platforms could be sued for recommending a potentially depression- or anxiety-inducing video to anyone under 18. We know from past experience that in order to protect their bottom line, social media companies will overcompensate and actively suppress posts and groups about gender identity, sexuality, abortion — anything they’re worried the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could be willing to argue “harms” kids. How do you think a potential Trump administration’s FTC would use that kind of authority?

Other features of the bill stretch its censorship potential further. Despite language claiming that the bill does not require platforms to conduct “age verification,” to meaningfully comply with the law, platforms will have to know who is under 18. This means they’ll institute invasive age verification systems or age-gating, which can completely cut off access for LGBTQ+ youth who have unsupportive parents, and/or make it unsafe for queer people to access online resources anonymously. KOSA creates powerful new ways for the government to interfere with online speech. For this reason, the bill is like catnip to extreme right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation, the coordinators of Project 2025, who have explicitly said they want to use it to target LGBTQ+ content. KOSA’s lead Republican sponsor, Marsha Blackburn, has also said in an interview she wants to use KOSA to protect minors “from the transgender.”

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) purports to protect children, but in reality, it’s a censorship bill that would impact LGBTQ+ youth. #StopKOSA #KOSA

[breaking-news-the-aroace-has]

The AroAce is protesting this vehemently. They can absolutely be trusted near massive heavy-duty machinery that can completely demolish things. They would never, EVER put important government documents or a transphobic state legislator into an active woodchipper. No way.

[politicalprof]

The Declaration of Independence

As I do every year, I am posting the entire text of the Declaration of Independence. It is flawed, inconsistently applied, and fascinating. It may be even more relevant this year than most. If you haven't ever read the whole thing, you should. It's worth the time:

----------------

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.