ChiGoose

Where to draw the line on what should be allowed is tough. But I would hope we could agree to draw it to disallow paid agents of a foreign intelligence service.

So if a foreign adversary is funding influence groups to spread propaganda in the US we should just let them do that?

Yup. Any other media company would be in the same position if they had knowingly lied. And yet, we don’t see this kind of suit against other outlets, which should tell you all you need to know but some people seem to be so reliant on the lie that they still believe even after being told that they were lied too.

The best part is that if the 2020 election actually was stolen, Fox wouldn’t be in this position. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. But instead of taking the obvious lesson here (there’s no world in which Fox shells out almost $800 million if the election actually was stolen) some people are so conditioned to swallow the lie that they continue to believe it in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.

At the time of the founding of the United States, voting was restricted to white men who owned land. While the Constitution mentions citizens, I don't think it actually defined citizen until the 14th amendment. It was left up to the states to determine who qualified as a citizen, which was incorporated to the other states through Article IV Section 2.

If the tools are there, and people aren't utilizing them, and you're unhappy with that, then you should probably change something.

No worries. Explaining legal stuff is difficult. Even journalists usually get it wrong. Plus, people tend not to read the actual words and just assume they know what you're saying anyway.

The special master was to determine whether or not Fox had complied with discovery rules since it appeared they were hiding evidence. Now that the case is settled, I'd imagine the special master order will be revoked.

Don’t forget the shareholder suits. This isn’t over for Fox by a long shot.

Fox decided that paying almost $800 million was a better idea than letting Rupert Murdoch and Tucker Carlson testify under oath. And they are probably right!

It changes nothing with the standard. You still have to meet actual malice under NYT v. Sullivan. Dominion had Fox dead to rights because Fox operates as a propaganda outfit, leaving a long paper trail of them saying that they knew they were lying.

Looks like $787 million. I haven't seen anything on what Fox has to admit publicly (or not).

Access to Contraception "Lack of knowledge, misperceptions, and exaggerated concerns about the safety of contraceptive methods are major barriers to contraceptive use. There has been a focus on abstinence-only sexuality education for young people in the United States despite research demonstrating its ineffectiveness in increasing age of sexual debut and decreasing number of partners and other risky behavior 9 10. In contrast, data suggest the effectiveness of comprehensive sexuality education in achieving these outcomes 10. The emphasis on abstinence-only education may have in part led to widespread misperceptions of contraceptive effectiveness, mechanisms of action, and safety that can have an effect on contraceptive use and method selection 11. For example, many individuals have unfounded concerns that oral contraceptives are linked to major health problems or that IUDs carry a high risk of infection 12 13. Many individuals also incorrectly believe certain types of contraception to be abortifacients 14. None of the FDA-approved contraceptive methods are abortifacients because they do not interfere with a pregnancy and are not effective after a fertilized egg has implanted successfully in the uterus 15. Health care providers also may have knowledge deficits that can hamper their ability to offer appropriate contraceptive methods to their patients. For example, many clinicians are uncertain about the risks and benefits of IUDs and lack knowledge about correct patient selection and contraindications 16 17 18. Improving health care provider and patient knowledge about contraceptive methods would improve access and allow for safer use." When I was younger, my mom, a well educated person with multiple degrees, told me that if I was sexually active, I should use two condoms just to be safe. This actually makes it *less* safe, but seems to match with the data that there is a problem with lack of knowledge around contraceptives and safe sex. I'm also not going to pretend we live in a fantasy world. People are going to have sex. Teens are going to have sex. There is nothing you, I, nor the government can do to stop that from happening. So the question is: are you going to empower them with the tools to do it safely, or are you going to pretend that it isn't happening and then complain about the obvious consequences?

Most of the people on the left I’ve talked to actively talk about better sex education and better access to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I bet that they would also support programs to help people afford kids so that don’t make the decision to abort based on finances (one of the top drivers of elective abortions). If the Right actually wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies while increasing birth rates and personal freedom, a pro-natalist agenda combined with access to contraception would get a strong amount of support from the left.

Was really looking forward to getting those liars on the stand under oath. Probably the right call for Dominion though

Let the grifting begin! Who’s gonna be the first to throw down $99 for one of these babies? I wonder if they stole art for this batch too

If you look at their posts, they appear to be a very cheap AI trying to imitate a human but failing miserably.

If we have actual evidence that this works, I’d be open to it. So far, the evidence shows that more guns in schools does not reduce school shootings.

Probably depends on what the actual numbers would be. If it were as low as 3 deaths nationwide AND it eliminated all school shootings, that might be a justifiable trade off. However, studies show that a 1% increase in gun ownership results in a 0.9% increase in gun homicides. Handing out guns to the 4,000,000 teachers in this country would likely result in far more than three deaths per year. Especially when you consider how reckless teens can be and that not every teacher will properly store their firearm 100% of the time. As for SRO’s, studies show that they generally do not have an impact on school shootings. In an ideal world where everyone acts perfectly 100% of the time, these types of policies might work. But in the real world where things are messy and people make mistakes or otherwise act improperly, putting more guns in schools will do little at best, and result in more shootings at worst.

When people argue that the solution to gun violence is more guns (like arming teachers or putting more officers in schools), they are promoting policies that will result in more gun deaths because people are human, will make mistakes, and those mistakes become deadly when a firearm is present. Upstate NY woman, 20, fatally shot after turning down wrong driveway Kansas City police probe shooting of Black teen who went to wrong house to pick up his younger brothers Video shows police at the wrong house before fatal shooting of homeowner in New Mexico

Good news

No, you should take my words by the actual words I used instead of making up new things I never said. When this country was founded, only landed males could vote. It took many years and a lot of effort to expand the franchise first to all men, and later to women and minorities. LOL. Some of us have lives and don’t spend every minute refreshing a message board. Sorry if that’s inconvenient for you