So I didn’t have a source, just recollection. I went to look for a source specifically as it pertains to transfolk and bathrooms.

I don’t know that it’s an easy read, but I thought I’d link to something on congress.gov instead of a website whose bona fides I don’t know.

Although legislation may not alter the substantive meaning of the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted by the courts, Congress may define prohibited discrimination in various contexts, such as in employment and in federally funded education programs. The meaning of sex discrimination in those contexts has also been addressed by federal courts, including in claims brought by transgender individuals. Congress possesses substantial authority to alter the scope of prohibited conduct under civil rights statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Likewise, Congress has authority to provide exceptions to the application of those laws, such as the religious exception under Title IX

Harvard Law Review has this to say:

As novel iterations of laws targeting queer identity make their way through state legislatures, an alternative constitutional avenue for challenging them would be to identify and apply the factors that allowed the Romer Court to infer animus and flip the presumption of rationality to strike down a class-based law without applying a heightened form of scrutiny.

I’ll be honest, I’m not familiar enough with laws to fully comprehend what I’m reading here.

Also, I was specifically thinking about Bills of Attainder, which punishes an individual or group without judicial process. One might argue this person is being punished for being trans, but I couldn’t find anything specifically invoking the protection against these in the case of transfolk and bathrooms.

We’ve had our democratic say. Anything further response from the people will not be democracy. It’ll be the same thing the French people said to their aristocracy. The same thing the Russians said to the Tzars.

It has been made clear that any attempt to tailor a law so that it would predominantly affect a specific person or specific group, as it would in this case because even if it applies to all trans-folk, it would specifically primarily impact this one individual and has been said to be for that purpose (particularly damning).

Not that precedent means anything, so any attempt to litigate that winds up in front of the Supreme Court could go either way. I would hope that even they would see the pettiness here and follow precedent.

I’m not sure of the specifics of the Florida/Disney cases. I do know that it probably could’ve at least been argued that the law was too narrowly tailored, but I’m not a lawyer or a multi-billion dollar company and maybe there are reasons.

I think this is probably a really good point. I have no issue with AI generated images, although obviously if they are used to do an illegal thing such has harassment or defamation, those things are still illegal.

I’m of two minds when it comes to AI nudes of minors. The first is that if someone wants that and no actual person is harmed, I really don’t care. Let me caveat that here: I suspect there are people out there who, if inundated with fake CP, will then be driven to ideation about actual child abuse. And I think there is real harm done to that person and potentially the children if they go on to enact those fantasies. However I think it needs more data before I am willing to draw a firm conclusion.

But the second is that a proliferation of AI CP means it will be very difficult to tell fakes from actual child abuse. And for that reason alone, I think it’s important that any distribution of CP, whether real or just realistic, must be illegal. Because at a minimum it wastes resources that could be used to assist actual children and find their abusers.

So, absent further information, I think whatever a person whats to generate for themselves in private is just fine, but as soon as it starts to be distributed, I think that it must be illegal.

That makes it illegal, right? You can’t pass a law specifically designed to target individuals.

Todd warns that perceived overreach, like aggressive culture war policies or erratic mass deportation plans, could lead to public backlash and erode Trump’s support.

Why would Trump care? He is transactional, and the people who voted for him can’t give him anything more. They are 100% irrelevant to him.

So why would he give a single fuck about alienating them?

Shit, I’m angry I wasn’t chosen for Hogwarts or the Jedi Academy. That doesn’t make any of this bullshit real.

That sort of locks in the big players, though, right? If you aren’t making Facebook money, how are you going to afford the liability? What happens to a Lemmy or Mastodon instance with a budget of $2500/yr if the operators suddenly become legally liable for what people say on them? What if they are legally liable for what someone in another instance says which then gets federated?

There was a time when I’d agree with you. But right now I don’t see any difference between pissing away 10% of your money on “inefficiency” and giving it to a capitalist and labeling it profit, instead.

The problem isn’t that readers are unable to tell the post is ridiculous. The problem is all the morons who legitimately believe ridiculous things.

Hey, I love my state. You can’t just leave it to the whims of these schizophrenic fuck-knuckles.

Nah. Make it look like the call is coming from inside the house.

“Typical hysterical woman. Leave running the country to men, sweetie.”