Hey, Mirah!
Any feedback or input regarding Washington's H.B. 5427?
I'll insult you if you'll split the $2K with me.
Think on it.
Love you!
Geez . . . more "Karen" and "Snowflake" laws?
Looks like Canada is in the game, too, with their Online Harms Act.
Even Margaret Atwood (author of Handmaid's Tale ) is against this legislation, stating the obvious "possibilities for revenge false accusations and thoughtcrime stuff."
She sees the potential for going after anyone who dares speak against current thought, positions and government.
Orwell was right. He just got the year wrong. (Not original . . . I saw it on a T-Shirt).
Imagine all the money we could make snitching on each other.
I'm still trying to learn more about this one. Who can be targeted for a hate crime? Anyone?
Jeez, does anyone have a fear that they could inadverdantly be accused of something like this?
(03-15-2024, 05:31 PM)rothschild Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine all the money we could make snitching on each other.
What a great side-hussle!
(03-15-2024, 06:53 PM)MirahM Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still trying to learn more about this one. Who can be targeted for a hate crime? Anyone?
Jeez, does anyone have a fear that they could inadverdantly be accused of something like this?
Here's the scary thing . . . the reporting, under this law, is for non-criminal acts. All that needs to be stated is the reader "felt" hurt or intimidated. Once reported, law enforcement is tasked to investigate.
The accused never gets to know what was allegedly said or to whom it was said. Again . . . this law is for non-criminal violations of more stringent laws on the books.
Legislators claim the funds paid to the accuser is not for snitching . . . it is for damages the accuser suffered, by reading the words!
And . . . the accused's name is forever linked, through law enforcement databases, as an accused "feeling-hurter".
Seriously . . . I'm not making this up!
(03-15-2024, 09:11 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2024, 05:31 PM)rothschild Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine all the money we could make snitching on each other.
What a great side-hussle!
(03-15-2024, 06:53 PM)MirahM Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still trying to learn more about this one. Who can be targeted for a hate crime? Anyone?
Jeez, does anyone have a fear that they could inadverdantly be accused of something like this?
Here's the scary thing . . . the reporting, under this law, is for non-criminal acts. All that needs to be stated is the reader "felt" hurt or intimidated. Once reported, law enforcement is tasked to investigate.
The accused never gets to know what was allegedly said or to whom it was said. Again . . . this law is for non-criminal violations of more stringent laws on the books.
Legislators claim the funds paid to the accuser is not for snitching . . . it is for damages the accuser suffered, by reading the words!
And . . . the accused's name is forever linked, through law enforcement databases, as an accused "feeling-hurter".
Seriously . . . I'm not making this up!
Just when you think the cosmos couldn't get any more lubricious! 
I'm fucking done with all this shit. I can't handle it
That was supposed to be ludicrous, don't know how the hell that happened. 
lubricious is a nice word!