Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower
Sorry to get sucked back into this, but this is not true. It is an untrue statement, just as I suspect it is untrue that your high school was the one place in the history of the fucking world where anti-gay slurs resulted in ostracization of the slur-speaker by a noble and united band of wise-beyond-their-years students.
|
We could pass those laws. And they'd be stupid, futile, and unconstitutional.
California's new anti revenge porn law is a great example of well meaning idiocy. How is the state going to prove a photo was uploaded with the intent of revenge? And to the extent it may be intent-neutral (strict liability), how will it not violate the First Amendment?
