288
Release the names of every single person in the righrwing group. Its only fair.
It's nowhere near as far. The odds of someone on the right intimidating voters because of a foreign looking last name has been proven to be near 1 whereas there are no reported instances of the left doing the same.
There are no "both sides" on this issue. Only one side who wants to hurt the other.
You know the saying; be the change you want to see in the world. Get out there and start punching some Nazis for sport.
The court ruled that Fontes had not provided sufficient proof that releasing the list posed a danger to voters.
Will he have enough proof after people on the list find threats in their mailboxes, their houses catching on fire, their car's tires slashed?
Oh, they won't do anything as crass as that.
They'll just kill 'em.
If someone is harmed an enormous lawsuit against the state will follow and the reputation of the court and judge will collapse.
But that will have already been too late. The information will be out there, intimidation and silencing of people in fear will do it's job and keep them quiet, and out of polling booths.
We keep talking about reputations of courts and judges, “legitimacy”, but I’m just not seeing it matter.
That’s part of the fall into fascism. We can hopefully head that off today.
Kick the can*
Welcome to sovereign immunity
That will all just be ruled coincidence and unrelated.
So if right wing nuts target the voters it will be treated as premeditated, right?
Of course not. They're just lone wolfs who had a bad day.
The court ruled that Fontes had not provided sufficient proof that releasing the list posed a danger to voters.
(24 hours later)
Holy crap! They're going after the voters! Nobody could have seen this coming!
A reasonable court would have said “that’s a totally legitimate concern” and maybe suggested options for reviewing election integrity concerns without exposing PII to third parties.
This court would probably have waved off public statements by neo-nazis that they would hunt these people for sport as “insufficient cause for concern.”
Hopefully the appeals court judges are on the list.
From the wording it sounds like it wasn't made public, just presented to the lawyers. It's similar to how jehovah witnesses tried to pierce anononimity for the antijw reddit posters to identify defendants in a copyright lawsuit and the judge said something akin to "It's understandable that you don't want your name publicly associated with this post, but the court system imparts trust on lawyers to act as good stewards of this information and so plaintiffs council may have access to your identity." If this information is leaked they should be disbarred on the spot for mishandling the data.
I would hope so.
Did he try gesturing broadly at the general situation as proof?
I am curious why he didn’t appeal the ruling further.
Get ready for the night of long knives now.
They are serving appetizers, enjoy
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
288 points (99.7% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1713 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS