5
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

What if you are severely immuno-compromised during a pandemic? Just die, I suppose?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Better that than to hurt the feelings of someone who cares a whole lot about people wearing masks.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

From reading the article, I get the impression that this bill is mostly about them wanting to be able to arrest protesters who wear masks to hide their identity.

Which is still really shitty, to be clear.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Them's the small government folks for ya...

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Let them try .. I'm a cancer survivor with a compromised immune system. They can fuck right off and I'll be filing an ADA complaint.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Is americ okay

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

"For health reasons" - if that's what they choose to enforce, well then... looks like every day just became Halloween.

"No officer, Im not wearing this Ronald Reagan mask for my health, I'm celebrating Halloween" "Yes, officer, in May".

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

This would be a clear violation of ones first amendment right. Say it's your religion.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The courts have already set the precedent that there are preferred religions and religions that do not enjoy the same rights because the judges don't believe in them. Our legal system is corrupt and unjust. We cannot count on the courts to protect our rights.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Not...really? Not in this context, anyways.

You cannot compel a person to remove their hijab, anywhere in the US, for example.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

The police can and do, which is what they are enforcing here

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yes cops are bad. We all know. You don't fight cops at your arrest for justice. You fight in the court.

You're missing the point entirely.

Jfc room temp IQs in this thread.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

You are missing the point about the courts.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago
[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Qualified immunity called me while you wrote this. It didn't say anything, it was too busy laughing.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

That isn't what qualified immunity is or does.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Qualified immunity more or less means that the cops can't be held directly liable for something that the courts haven't yet found to be wrong for a police officer to do while in the course of their duties. So, if a cop does something obviously wrong and fucked up in the course of their duties (like, say, detaining you in a car parked on railroad tracks) and you suffer injuries from it, but a court hasn't previously found that exact situation to be a wrong thing for a police officer to do, qualified immunity prevents them from being held personally accountable. The next person who gets detained on railroad tracks is covered, but you're shit outta luck.

I know what QI is about, the comment has more to do with fighting the cops in court when courts meet all manner of egregious police behavior with little more than stern finger wags and exasperated sighs at best (often. Very rarely, they actually do get held accountable) and endorsement at worst.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

You don’t win fights against cops in court. Best case scenario, the public pays the cost to cover your suit.

But your point was that people have rights in the US. My point is a right on paper but at the discretion of the police, is in practice, not a right.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

As I said, you've missed the point entirely.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Oh just call the TST for this one, even the constitutional literalists cant weasel their way out of that one.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

They can, as they already have. There is no guarantee that their decisions will be consistent or intellectually sincere.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, and for some reason people are just ignoring the blatantly obvious inconsistency. It’s crazy.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Good let them infect each other.

this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

11849 readers
752 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS