I apologize for the brief News Weakly. This week has been ... extreme. We're working hard to move out of our house of 22 years in a matter of 2 weeks and it's been hectic. Here are a couple stories to tide you over until next week.
No Kidding?
Surprise, surprise! The city of Boston has joined others in suing social media outlets like TikTok and YouTube for “addictive features” aimed at minors. “These features include endless scrolling, frequent notifications, and personalized algorithms.” Wait … you mean … social media is out to entrap our kids and we’ve just now noticed it? This has been a problem from the beginning, but our current “empowerment of children” mindset without guiding or teaching responsibility has led us to this. We shouldn’t act surprised. (And, please, someone tell me you saw the "no kidding?" joke in the heading.)
Speaking of Social Media
A woman who runs an Instagram account called "CatsOnACouch" that she says exists “purr-ly to troll the current administration” is suing after she was barred from a JD Vance event. They violated her First Amendment rights. Is it a violation of the First Amendment? According to the courts, “The government may not regulate speech based on hostility—or favoritism—toward the speaker’s viewpoint,” and they clearly did. According to the Amendment, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” and they didn’t, but, hey, we all know the laws and the courts often don’t agree anymore. I’m waiting for the guy with the gun hoping to shoot his hated politician to sue for having his rights violated (First and Second Amendment) because they kept him out of a public hearing on the basis of his hostility. So many are worried about Trump as "king." I wonder about trusting our existing government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches). Luckily ... I don't have to (Psa 115:3).
Fake News That's Fit to Print
I like it. The Bee did a satire piece in their satire reporting. The story is about a prominent conspiracy theorist who, faced with evidence and reason, gives up his conspiracy theories and begins thinking rationally. Right ... like that would ever happen. Failed Maine candidate, Graham Platner, got more than his fair share of the Bee attention since he quit. One story is about the Nazi who regretted getting a Graham Platner tattoo since Platner dropped out of the race. Another is about how Platner has fled to Argentina to evade his problems here. (You get it, right? Nazis ... Argentina ... never mind.)
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
2 comments:
No Kidding?
I got the joke immediately. I think they are sueing the wrong people. Sueing social media for it's use by young children would be like sueing Snickers for making their kids fat and unhealthy. If anyone should be to blame in this situation, it is the parents that handed a portal to the Internet to their children without any concern for what they might find there. These parents have failed at their duty and are simply not willing to take the responsibility for their failure.
Speaking of Social Media
Wait, wait, wait. How is preventing someone from coming to your event a violation of the First Amendment? Does the First Amendment give you the freedom to say anything anywhere? Would it be a violation of my Freedom of Speech to bar me from speaking at the pulpit (or whatever they use) of a mosque? She is perfectly free to say all the things she wants, but nobody is obligated to let her say it in a particular place. It doesn't even match the first sentence of the amendment you quoted. Nobody is regulating what she can say. It is not illegal for her to say what she wants to say. She's just not free to say it in whatever venue he was a part of, if they do choose. Or did you mean to say, "and they clearly didn't."? Unless this event was some sort of open mic, speaker engagement seminar. If you're giving a speech to a room of people and someone is being loud, obnoxious, disrespectful, and disruptive, it would not be a violation of Free Speech to escort them out. Same goes for preventing someone you know intends to do so before you start. Even if it were an open mic type event, my guess is she would not be polite and wait her turn for the mic. She'd be haranguing and harassing and yelling over everyone, making it perfectly right to eject her from the premises. Based on the meager details here, I see no violation of her First Amendment rights. She was perfectly free to troll and yell to her hearts content outside.
Take News That's For to Print
Nazis, Argentina, snerk (that means a sound of quiet laughter).
David, I agree that they did NOT violate her "First Amendment rights" because no one tried to pass a law or anything or even prevent her from speaking. I mean, they didn't shut down her site. But THE COURTS have ruled that a government-sponsored cannot prevent someone from attending because they don't like what they have to say. That is THE COURTS have expanded the understanding of the text.
Post a Comment