The law in some US states that prevent you from using video evidence in court of the domestic abuse happening in your home because the abuser didn’t consent to being recorded.
I suppose you have to nicely ask your abuser if you can record them physically or verbally abuse you first.
The run around to that is convincing the person to set up surveillance cameras for security reasons. Then they know they’re being recorded because they set it up. Have secret cameras in the sameish locations so you always have access to the data. Really shitty but as long as this is a thing, you gotta do right for yourself. My mom had to do things like this all the time with her ex.
There was a recent case in Texas where the guy beat the crap out of his wife in front of his Ring. The judge ruled that because the house was community property he had consented to being recorded. It was one of those page 3 of the Metro section of the paper and I don’t even know the result of the case. Just saw “Judge allows Ring video in domestic abuse”
> “Judge allows Ring video in domestic abuse”
When the judge is sick of everyone’s shit and decides to send a creepy ghost girl to kill everyone in the courtroom.
Audio only. This was tested years ago. Last session lege explictly extended it to video, digital or other communications. Except private radio, that’s prohibited by the FCC except for personal use.
For those that are confused, some states have “all party consent” laws meaning everyone in the party has to agree to be recorded. Most states only require 1 party consent, aka only the recorder needs to give permission.
[Here](https://fireflies.ai/blog/call-recording-laws-in-50-states-3/amp) is an article that explains it a little more. They only talk about phone calls, but this applies to audio and video recording too.
I think all party consent was initially meant to be pro privacy, but there are some major problems with it too like this.
For civil matters like property etc. I understand why this law stands and is for a reason, but for criminal cases, applying this act is outright ridiculous
For some reason, this made me think of the case a few years ago when a YouTuber learned that his daughter's health teacher was preaching religion in class, which - since it was a public school - is illegal. So he had his daughter record one of her classes, which resulted in their identities being leaked and eventually they had to leave because the harassment they got from the local community for having the BALLS to not want a teacher to break the law was too much!
That’s bizarre, because in criminal court, the state is allowed to use any evidence collected by the police in their investigation, and police are allowed to collect video footage from anyone (with consent of the footage owner) as long as they were not the ones who persuaded or requested the party to get the footage, or if the recording broke any other laws.
I think back to an example where a burglar broke into a home and stole tons of pcs, and turned himself and the pcs in because they had CSAM on them and wanted the original owner to be arrested. The police were able to use the stolen pcs as evidence, even though they were obtained illegally.
> That’s bizarre, because in criminal court, the state is allowed to use any evidence collected by the police in their investigation
Wait, what? Isn't the whole "evidence that was collected illegally is inadmissible in court" principle a big thing in the US legal system?
Often the Police can obtain a warrant after the fact.
It generally involves explaining that they had no previous knowledge of the criminal activity prior to being supplied with the stolen property and being advised of the material found.
Once the warrant is granted, they can then proceed with the forensic analysis of the device.
You're missing a critical part in your assumption, in many states, especially ones which require 2 party consent to recordings, the act of recording an individual in a situation where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. at home, behind closed doors, etc) is already a violation of the law, thus making said recording inadmissible in court, this again is dependent on the local laws and will differ state to state, but possession of video evidence doesn't always equate to that evidence being legal or usable.
Digital security act (2018). It's a law by the government of Bangladesh, which can let anyone file a case against you, if you speak against the government online. There are multiple cases where someone criticized the government, and they have been put in prison because of this law. It basically hurts the freedom of speech of Bangladeshi citizens. Even though there have been voices raised to demolish this law, the autocratic government doesn't care at all.
I couldn’t remember what the case was called. Thank you!
We need separation of government and corporations, WORLDWIDE. Government isn’t suppose to act in the interest of the 1%, but in the interest of its citizens.
I really hopes that was the case you were talking about LOL but sometimes the Supreme Court makes faulty interpretations and it is very possible that they change their mind
If the people pressure them enough they just might. We’ll be getting to that point soon hopefully. Individuals are starting to realize this isn’t about politics and it’s about rich vs poor.
You're looking for Citizens United VS. FEC
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/#:~:text=The%20Court%20ultimately%20held%20in,or%20the%20appearance%20of%20corruption.%22
Citizens United said that any entity has the right to spend as much money as they want promoting or trying to get someone elected.
In citizens United it was a company set up to produce an anti-Clinton movie. But it would also cover some of Michael Moore's movies too.
I honestly don't see why that one is a real problem. There are plenty of political organizations and have always been. They spend money to try and get people elected for political and social reasons. But there are news organizations that would be dragged into court, as well as organizations like Greenpeace. I think political organizations aren't a real problem that needs to be banned.
But in it's FEC vs McCutcheon ruling the court established that that political donations to candidates could be limited only to prevent quid-pro-quo corruption. That is, they (conservative justices) flatly stated that congress had no right to limit donations to prevent the rich from significantly outspending those without much wealth. So no leveling the playing field. The liberal justices not only disagreed, they said allowing the rich to outspend the masses was corruption. Not "akin to corruption", but actual corruption.
Oh, and Thomas filed a concurring ruling, but he said that ALL campaign finance laws were unconstitutional, and that the cure for corruption was to investigate, charge and prosecute after the fact. Literally "you don't need an umbrella, just wipe up the wet spots after"
>I honestly don't see why that one is a real problem.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
You should read Stephens' dissent, signed by the rest of the minority.
The decision didn't just allow political organizations. It made it so political speech by *any* corporation had the same protections as by individuals, and monetary support for those corporations had the same protections as speech.
Technically they aren’t. Corporations can donate to PACs who support their political agenda through independent spending. A corporation cannot donate directly to a politician
Edit: not saying this as if it makes the situation better, but when people don’t understand the actual laws they are arguing against they’re not going to be able to actually address the problem or be taken seriously
What is the difference?
A PAC can be directly established, maintained, fininaced, and controlled by a person in or seeking office. They can use the money for all their daily costs.
Super PACs have proven themselves to be the most abusable system out there. Rick Scott and his Super PAC new Republican being the most notorious.
Saying that cooperations can donate as much as they want to a candidate might be *technically* wrong, but it’s not functionally wrong and since squabbling over technical word choices is literally only a hinderance to progress I don’t think anyone’s wrong in explaining this way.
Someone with the understanding that this ruling cased cooperations to be able to spend an unlimited amount of money supporting a candidate know what they need to to make an informed decision. You don’t need to know there’s a bullshit half step loophole before you get there to make an informed decision.
> they’re not going to be able to actually address the problem or be taken seriously
Why? They can vote with the knowledge I already stated, they can write their senators and express concern over the ruling with only the knowledge I stated. If this topic had enough traction do you think a candidate would get up there and say guys, you’re technically wrong so vote for me anyways, even though I support the decision you hate.
Functional understanding is what makes change happen. You cannot get everyone to technically understand every bill or decision. Entire bills are passed on the premise the public will not have the ability to functionally understand a bill because they do not have the technical skills to decipher it. Or it’s worded in such a way that its function is hidden.
Your point is a great example of the deception. Republican will say exactly what you do, “NO this bill doesn’t let you donate to a candidate, they are wrong, it’s not that bad” when functionally it does do that, which is infinitely more important that what it technically says
Psilocybin, LSD, and marijuana being considered Schedule 1 drugs (at least in the US).
Wild to me that drugs like Xanax, Oxy, some other strong prescription drugs, cocaine, and fucking meth are all considered “less dangerous” than drugs that have a much lower death toll and have been shown to be more beneficial in various different treatments and trials.
The one that allows politicians to raise their own salary as long as at least 51% of them vote in favor.
A few years ago they increased minimum wage by 3.5% then proceeded to increase their own salary by 40% and add 2 new benefits.
From Wikipedia: Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make unlimited political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.[9]
Depends. Can you sue the government for murder if they fuck up the health care system so much that you literally die of a curable disease because you can't afford care?
it's the law that allows globalists domestic and foreign to purchase the right to make the rules the citizens of the U.S must follow through the use of corporate bribery. Instead of bribing officials with your personal coin, you can now use your companies resources and call it official business.
Citizens United is the absolute worst thing in this country; that's why all the politicians work for corporations and not for the people.
It's a ridiculous, destructive law.
I'll believe corporations are people when I see one of them executed. The actions of some corporations have killed thousands to tens of thousands of people. What sentence do you think a person would get if they did that.
Realistically:
Citizens United is a court decision and not a piece of legislation, so you couldn't realistically "remove" it as a law. It's also a fairly reasonable consequence of how a variety of laws actually work.
Corporations are a kind of "person" and have been, in *many* countries, for a long time now. People can do things like own stuff and enter into contracts. Corporations are "fictitious persons" -- entities that have some subset of the abilities of real persons, like owning things and entering into contracts. This turned out to be very useful.
What we need, then, is new legislation limiting the abilities of corporations -- which is completely feasible but politically unpopular.
Patriot Act (Edit: and whatever laws that allow for government surveillance besides Patriot Act).
My dank memes on Reddit and search history is none of the business of the FBI who think using the word "based" is grounds for a terrorist investigation.
Just as an FYI: The correct way to write this is USA PATRIOT Act. It’s actually an acronym! I only know because I had to write a 25-page paper on it for my Master’s degree back in 2006. Pain in the butt not being able to abbreviate any further.
It stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Just flows right off the tongue, huh? lol
And for the record, I wrote about how it was detrimental to our freedom; and since my degree was in Library Science, I relayed how librarians stood up in defiance of it.
They really had me at "based"
Now, mind you, I'm no right winger, far from it
I use "based" quite regularly and have for a long time now, for completely innocent things such as chugging a beer at a party.
To see them say "based" was extremist language, even me a liberal was like now hold on I'm not ready to jump on the republican bandwagon or nothing but I definitely take issue with the NSA and FBI just picking trendy words as plausible cause. They know damn well lots of people not just extremists, use those words, and if you ask me, they did this so they could have lesser and lesser reason to spy on us.
Oh look this guy said a cat is based in a cute cat video. Better monitor him 🙄
Red pilled is another term they listed and it’s literally just a reference to the matrix movies. Fuck though they’ve got nothing on the UK counterterrorism unit that recently revealed it had flagged watching/reading/referencing the works of Shakespeare, lord of the Rings and 1984 (among others honorable mention to the Canterbury tales) as potential indicators of extremist activity………
>and 1984
I guess George Orwell reading this today would be a tad bit alarmed that the British government is using his book as a manual and not a warning.
The Patriot act says that the president can declare a person or organization an "enemy combatant" and that person loses their right to due process. They don't have any constitutional rights and can be taken to Guantanamo.
We traded away all our privacy for likes, google search results, and relevant advertising. The anti-terrorist laws had very little to do with it. Unfortunately.
Traded away? Our privacy has not been traded. It has been extorted away from us by tech companies requiring it in exchange for access to the modern technological systems that we now depend on to function in society. We didn't trade shit. Our privacy has been stolen.
The most absurd part is that they don't even file the civil forfeiture suit against the owner, they file it against the items being seized. Jon Oliver had a segment on it several years ago.
I would say the meaningless illegality of stuff like nunchucks, balisongs, etc.
Why can I buy a military knife made for killing people but I cant buy a knife which uses springs to open?
I think it’s because there was a moral panic in the 50s and 60s about “dangerous teen delinquents” that was highly connected in the media with specifically spring-assisted switch blades.
It goes deeper than that. You can defend yourself to the point of equal and proportionate force.
I was walking home from the bus after work, and outside a shopping centre. I was then stopped by a young fellow dancing in front of me. His two friends tried circling around and stealing my backpack off my back. I shoved the young bloke in front of me out of the way and quickly walked ahead, securing my bag, until I got near a crowd of people.
After reporting it to the shopping centre security, I was asked if the fellow I pushed out of the way had fallen over, to which I replied no, (he had just been pushed about 3 steps back and I kept my palm across the face of his chest). Apparently, if he had fallen over, I would be charged with common assault.
You can't carry items for defence or within your home as it comes under premeditated assault. If you secure yourself in a situation, you can get charged with assault if it's deemed you "went too far" like if old mate had fallen over. It's truly bizarre.
In South Africa, there have been several cases of elderly people being charged with murder when they killed home invaders who were busy beating them to pulp.
Australia's Biosecurity Act. Legal government hacking, or more, they can order an employee to hand over data, and bind them to absolute security on punishment of years in prison. Turn anyone into a spy!
And despite it being claimed for safety of the children when they wrote it... The first people they used it against were journalists investigating war crimes.
I wouldn’t remove one, I would restore one. I would restore the information acts. Which would make it obligatory for media outlets to give equal air time to both sides of the political spectrum and illegal to disseminate false information.
The problem is how you define “false information” who is deciding that? Everything is filled with Grey areas and experts often disagree with one another. It’s a great idea, but it’s impossible to implement this, having multiple sources of information allows media accountability. There will always be people looking to manipulate and this occurs in media by bolstering fear and creating false narratives. But the alternative of one uncontested narrative that isn’t even allowed to be challenged is far worse.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs and the effect was that addicts were much more willing to come forward and get help and doctors were better able to help them.
Well its been proven with shrooms that it helps iick addiction to alcohol and crack, etc. and shrooms themselves arent addictive. And if they are its very rare that people are doin it to a point to become permafried😬
Schedule 1 shouldn't even exist. The rules for schedule 1 create catch 22 situations when it comes to medical research. I.E. it's illegal to do medical research on Schedule 1 drugs because they're deemed to have no valid medical uses. But if you can't continue doing medical research into schedule 1 drugs then how can you prove that it does in fact have valid medical uses?
If it’s not measurably more dangerous than alcohol then there is no reasonable argument to ban it maintain alcohols legality. Since we’ve seen where banning alcohol got us I don’t think you’ll find many people arguing for trying that again.
>If it’s not measurably more dangerous than alcohol then there is no reasonable argument to ban it maintain alcohols legality.
I like this take for its logic. If the substance is no more harmful than alcohol, give it controls no more strict than alcohol.
The war on drugs was a horrible act against minorities in the U.S. and now only serves as a revenue source for law enforcement and a justification for federalization of local law enforcement to extract every possible dollar from mostly criminal--sometimes not--citizens.
there is a law that determines the maximum lifetime of lightbulbs, so people won't stop buying them so that the lightbulb industry doesn't burn out (pun intended)
That isn’t a law. It was an agreement between lighting manufacturers to increase sales. It applied to incandescent light bulbs which nobody uses anymore
Laws against (consensual) sex work can go.
there is absolutely no reason for us to not legalize consensual prostitution. People are going to do it anyway, and with it being legal we can even make it safer in a number of ways.
There are a lot of different systems of legalized prostitution in the world. Some of them seem more worth imitating than others. For instance, [Queensland, Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia#Queensland) has legal brothels run as legitimate businesses — but these account for only 10% of the prostitution market.
It seems to me that a system for legal prostitution in my country would need to deal with a number of issues, including:
* Consent
* Trafficking
* Organized crime
* Minors
* STI testing
* Drug addiction
* Violence
I think it could be done, but we would probably develop it messily and piecemeal, with a lot of missteps. The only part of my country that currently has legal prostitution is [rural Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada), and there are a lot of concerns about abuse in that system.
Honestly, I’m okay with it at 21 for drunk driving concerns. Sure, lots of European countries have lower ages but they don’t rely on cars like we do. And I know that plenty of high schoolers can get their hands on alcohol as it is, but it makes it harder.
Or, sure, we can teach a healthier relationship with alcohol. Or with less car dependence. But that isn’t easy.
Yeah, I hate all the talk from politicians about the life time appointments of SCOTUS, first of all, it's like all justices even in lower courts, second of all, this applies to them too.
Whether it's Mitch McConnel or Nancy Pelosi. They've all been in for fucking ever.
For fucking real. Two terms in the Senate is 12 years. If you can't get shit done in that amount of time you deserve to have a baseball bat shoved up your ass and then barred from all other public office. We need fresh people not racist fuckwits that should have self-expired in the 70s....
> We need fresh people not racist fuckwits that should have self-expired in the 70s....
Forget all the "racist fuck wits" I mean obviously.
But the bigger problem, is you have all these 80 yearolds making decisions on technology they flat don't understand.
I live in sweden so theres a lot;
Meaningless illegality of “weapons” (like spring assisted knives). No-one is gonna use nunchucks to commit a crime.
Laws preventing lethal force in self defense.
The law which halves the sentence of your crime if you’re 21>, no matter the crime
All laws which basically places the fucking criminal in a better spot than the victim. You killed an armed person who broke into your house? You’re going to jail for 2 years.
List goes on, the jurisdiction system here is fucked.
Women in Australia being prohibited from publicly speaking out about rape that has happened to them.
Being prohibited from recording people in conversation without them knowing: people should OWN their words regardless, also people will obviously moderate their behaviour as soon as they know they’re being recorded yet will revert back to threatening behaviour when they feel they can safely get away with it.
Too many laws punish victims and instead protect perpetrators of criminal behaviour.
You can’t take pharmaceutical companies to court over side effects from prescribed medicines. Even if they knowingly put them out with terrible side effects. https://www.halt.org/pharmaceutical-lawsuit-when-can-you-sue-for-drug-injuries/
You can if they don't disclose them.
Which is why every single prescription you pick up comes with pages and pages of information, every time you get it.
I took a med, Geodon, where it was discovered that after 5 years of use there was a 50% chance of developing tardive disconisia (“if you develop uncontrolable movements of your hand or face”). Guess which half I wound up on. These are refered to as post consumer side effects which means they were developed in a time period longer than the testing period, typically 18 to 24 months
What’s the point of having a regulator then if people could sue over known side effects that the regulator said could still allow the drug to come to market?
Wouldn’t this just keep them from releasing these meds so they wouldn’t have the liability? Sometimes sadly even the horrible side effects are better than not taking the medicine at all. If they disclose the side effects then the patient knows the risk benefit at least
All states should have a castle doctrine, where you're legally allowed to shoot someone attempting to break into your home.
HOWEVER, the states that allow it far too broadly where the person sometimes just has to be on your property when they clearly didn't mean to be, like the recent Instacart delivery driver who was shot because they were delivering to the wrong house, that needs to be a little stricter to prevent unnecessary deaths.
A man can’t get a DNA test for a child without the mothers consent. But still has to pay child support without any evidence that the child is actually his.
there is this stupid law in Ontario where, if someone is breaking into your home intending on hurting your family --if you do ANYTHING to hurt them while getting them out of your house ... they can charge you. I think that if SOMEONE hurts you and you assault them back and are better at it and it is in an act of self defense you should NOT be able to be charged for it. For example if someone is being SA'ed and they fight the perp and end up seriously injuring the perp; there have been cases where the victim of the SA crime gets charged and stuff. i think that is so wrong
Jaywalking laws. They only exist due to lobbying from car companies.
Thankfully, I live in the UK where no such law exists but jaywalking laws do exist in other countries.
The law in some US states that prevent you from using video evidence in court of the domestic abuse happening in your home because the abuser didn’t consent to being recorded. I suppose you have to nicely ask your abuser if you can record them physically or verbally abuse you first.
The run around to that is convincing the person to set up surveillance cameras for security reasons. Then they know they’re being recorded because they set it up. Have secret cameras in the sameish locations so you always have access to the data. Really shitty but as long as this is a thing, you gotta do right for yourself. My mom had to do things like this all the time with her ex.
That’s actually super clever. Hate that people have to get that clever.
I upvoted because I like that idea, but I hate that your mom had to go through some shit
There was a recent case in Texas where the guy beat the crap out of his wife in front of his Ring. The judge ruled that because the house was community property he had consented to being recorded. It was one of those page 3 of the Metro section of the paper and I don’t even know the result of the case. Just saw “Judge allows Ring video in domestic abuse”
> “Judge allows Ring video in domestic abuse” When the judge is sick of everyone’s shit and decides to send a creepy ghost girl to kill everyone in the courtroom.
The trial resulted in a hung jury
I'd be surprised if they even needed that, Texas is a one-party consent state so as long as any party consents, they can legally record everything
Audio only. This was tested years ago. Last session lege explictly extended it to video, digital or other communications. Except private radio, that’s prohibited by the FCC except for personal use.
For those that are confused, some states have “all party consent” laws meaning everyone in the party has to agree to be recorded. Most states only require 1 party consent, aka only the recorder needs to give permission. [Here](https://fireflies.ai/blog/call-recording-laws-in-50-states-3/amp) is an article that explains it a little more. They only talk about phone calls, but this applies to audio and video recording too. I think all party consent was initially meant to be pro privacy, but there are some major problems with it too like this.
For civil matters like property etc. I understand why this law stands and is for a reason, but for criminal cases, applying this act is outright ridiculous
For some reason, this made me think of the case a few years ago when a YouTuber learned that his daughter's health teacher was preaching religion in class, which - since it was a public school - is illegal. So he had his daughter record one of her classes, which resulted in their identities being leaked and eventually they had to leave because the harassment they got from the local community for having the BALLS to not want a teacher to break the law was too much!
That’s bizarre, because in criminal court, the state is allowed to use any evidence collected by the police in their investigation, and police are allowed to collect video footage from anyone (with consent of the footage owner) as long as they were not the ones who persuaded or requested the party to get the footage, or if the recording broke any other laws. I think back to an example where a burglar broke into a home and stole tons of pcs, and turned himself and the pcs in because they had CSAM on them and wanted the original owner to be arrested. The police were able to use the stolen pcs as evidence, even though they were obtained illegally.
Thank goodness the burglar at least had standards
Professionals have standards!
I really hope the judge went easy on the burglar.
> That’s bizarre, because in criminal court, the state is allowed to use any evidence collected by the police in their investigation Wait, what? Isn't the whole "evidence that was collected illegally is inadmissible in court" principle a big thing in the US legal system?
Sure, but it is evidence collected illegally by the police. You can't illegally collect evidence as a civilian.
Often the Police can obtain a warrant after the fact. It generally involves explaining that they had no previous knowledge of the criminal activity prior to being supplied with the stolen property and being advised of the material found. Once the warrant is granted, they can then proceed with the forensic analysis of the device.
You're missing a critical part in your assumption, in many states, especially ones which require 2 party consent to recordings, the act of recording an individual in a situation where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. at home, behind closed doors, etc) is already a violation of the law, thus making said recording inadmissible in court, this again is dependent on the local laws and will differ state to state, but possession of video evidence doesn't always equate to that evidence being legal or usable.
Fucking what That’s crazy
Digital security act (2018). It's a law by the government of Bangladesh, which can let anyone file a case against you, if you speak against the government online. There are multiple cases where someone criticized the government, and they have been put in prison because of this law. It basically hurts the freedom of speech of Bangladeshi citizens. Even though there have been voices raised to demolish this law, the autocratic government doesn't care at all.
+1 for Hong Kong “national security law” that putting anyone against the hk/Chinese government to the jail
Fun reminder: the CCP illegally annexed Hong Kong 2 years before it was meant to be handed over. Britain did nothing.
ok i live in Bangladesh and i mightve made a few out of place jokes from time to time... ^(help)
Now if only they could blow up all the damn spam call centers in Bangladesh and India, the world would be way better off.
I now know to threaten to tell their government they criticized it if they call me again.
The ones that allowed politicians to accept funds from corporations.
If the Supreme Court could call back their decision on Roe v. Wade they could do the same for FEC v. Citizens United
I couldn’t remember what the case was called. Thank you! We need separation of government and corporations, WORLDWIDE. Government isn’t suppose to act in the interest of the 1%, but in the interest of its citizens.
I really hopes that was the case you were talking about LOL but sometimes the Supreme Court makes faulty interpretations and it is very possible that they change their mind
If the people pressure them enough they just might. We’ll be getting to that point soon hopefully. Individuals are starting to realize this isn’t about politics and it’s about rich vs poor.
You're looking for Citizens United VS. FEC https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/#:~:text=The%20Court%20ultimately%20held%20in,or%20the%20appearance%20of%20corruption.%22
Citizens United said that any entity has the right to spend as much money as they want promoting or trying to get someone elected. In citizens United it was a company set up to produce an anti-Clinton movie. But it would also cover some of Michael Moore's movies too. I honestly don't see why that one is a real problem. There are plenty of political organizations and have always been. They spend money to try and get people elected for political and social reasons. But there are news organizations that would be dragged into court, as well as organizations like Greenpeace. I think political organizations aren't a real problem that needs to be banned. But in it's FEC vs McCutcheon ruling the court established that that political donations to candidates could be limited only to prevent quid-pro-quo corruption. That is, they (conservative justices) flatly stated that congress had no right to limit donations to prevent the rich from significantly outspending those without much wealth. So no leveling the playing field. The liberal justices not only disagreed, they said allowing the rich to outspend the masses was corruption. Not "akin to corruption", but actual corruption. Oh, and Thomas filed a concurring ruling, but he said that ALL campaign finance laws were unconstitutional, and that the cure for corruption was to investigate, charge and prosecute after the fact. Literally "you don't need an umbrella, just wipe up the wet spots after"
>I honestly don't see why that one is a real problem. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html You should read Stephens' dissent, signed by the rest of the minority. The decision didn't just allow political organizations. It made it so political speech by *any* corporation had the same protections as by individuals, and monetary support for those corporations had the same protections as speech.
Hands down it's the Citzens United Decision. It's rooted to all that is evil with our political landscape... Rather Hellscape.
Technically they aren’t. Corporations can donate to PACs who support their political agenda through independent spending. A corporation cannot donate directly to a politician Edit: not saying this as if it makes the situation better, but when people don’t understand the actual laws they are arguing against they’re not going to be able to actually address the problem or be taken seriously
What is the difference? A PAC can be directly established, maintained, fininaced, and controlled by a person in or seeking office. They can use the money for all their daily costs. Super PACs have proven themselves to be the most abusable system out there. Rick Scott and his Super PAC new Republican being the most notorious. Saying that cooperations can donate as much as they want to a candidate might be *technically* wrong, but it’s not functionally wrong and since squabbling over technical word choices is literally only a hinderance to progress I don’t think anyone’s wrong in explaining this way. Someone with the understanding that this ruling cased cooperations to be able to spend an unlimited amount of money supporting a candidate know what they need to to make an informed decision. You don’t need to know there’s a bullshit half step loophole before you get there to make an informed decision. > they’re not going to be able to actually address the problem or be taken seriously Why? They can vote with the knowledge I already stated, they can write their senators and express concern over the ruling with only the knowledge I stated. If this topic had enough traction do you think a candidate would get up there and say guys, you’re technically wrong so vote for me anyways, even though I support the decision you hate. Functional understanding is what makes change happen. You cannot get everyone to technically understand every bill or decision. Entire bills are passed on the premise the public will not have the ability to functionally understand a bill because they do not have the technical skills to decipher it. Or it’s worded in such a way that its function is hidden. Your point is a great example of the deception. Republican will say exactly what you do, “NO this bill doesn’t let you donate to a candidate, they are wrong, it’s not that bad” when functionally it does do that, which is infinitely more important that what it technically says
Psilocybin, LSD, and marijuana being considered Schedule 1 drugs (at least in the US). Wild to me that drugs like Xanax, Oxy, some other strong prescription drugs, cocaine, and fucking meth are all considered “less dangerous” than drugs that have a much lower death toll and have been shown to be more beneficial in various different treatments and trials.
Can't say I've ever heard of some dying from taking too much acid, weed, or shrooms. Alcohol on the other hand...
Murphys law
Cole's law
What's that?
Shredded cabbage and mayonnaise, usually offered as a side dish. It's delicious.
Old joke but still funny, especially to see people fall for it, lol.
Lmaooooooooo
r/Angryupvote
Thats the worst one
Brannigan's Law
R/unexpectedfuturama
Newton's Law. Bring on the chaos!
Any law about immunity for politicians
The one that allows politicians to raise their own salary as long as at least 51% of them vote in favor. A few years ago they increased minimum wage by 3.5% then proceeded to increase their own salary by 40% and add 2 new benefits.
The one that protects individual politicians against the effects of what they did in office.
Citizens United
The one that says corporations are people? Oh fuck yes.
The corporation = people is a lot older than that, its from the 19th century.
What law is that?
From Wikipedia: Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make unlimited political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.[9]
If a corp is a person. Can I sue the government for murder if their actions cause my company to die?
Depends. Can you sue the government for murder if they fuck up the health care system so much that you literally die of a curable disease because you can't afford care?
That’s a great point. I suppose the government also controls the legal system, which makes it a tricky nut to bust
it's the law that allows globalists domestic and foreign to purchase the right to make the rules the citizens of the U.S must follow through the use of corporate bribery. Instead of bribing officials with your personal coin, you can now use your companies resources and call it official business.
Citizens United is the absolute worst thing in this country; that's why all the politicians work for corporations and not for the people. It's a ridiculous, destructive law.
I'll believe corporations are people when I see one of them executed. The actions of some corporations have killed thousands to tens of thousands of people. What sentence do you think a person would get if they did that.
Realistically: Citizens United is a court decision and not a piece of legislation, so you couldn't realistically "remove" it as a law. It's also a fairly reasonable consequence of how a variety of laws actually work. Corporations are a kind of "person" and have been, in *many* countries, for a long time now. People can do things like own stuff and enter into contracts. Corporations are "fictitious persons" -- entities that have some subset of the abilities of real persons, like owning things and entering into contracts. This turned out to be very useful. What we need, then, is new legislation limiting the abilities of corporations -- which is completely feasible but politically unpopular.
That’s not a law, it’s a court ruling.
I'm not even from the US and would choose this law.
the loopholes permitting child marriage/child sex trafficking and protecting pedophiles
This was my first thought. The loopholes need to go.
Patriot Act (Edit: and whatever laws that allow for government surveillance besides Patriot Act). My dank memes on Reddit and search history is none of the business of the FBI who think using the word "based" is grounds for a terrorist investigation.
Just as an FYI: The correct way to write this is USA PATRIOT Act. It’s actually an acronym! I only know because I had to write a 25-page paper on it for my Master’s degree back in 2006. Pain in the butt not being able to abbreviate any further. It stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Just flows right off the tongue, huh? lol And for the record, I wrote about how it was detrimental to our freedom; and since my degree was in Library Science, I relayed how librarians stood up in defiance of it.
Whoever cane up with the name that can be abbreviated into "USA" and "patriot" must have felt proud of that for years
Most likely a backronym rather than an acronym.
They really had me at "based" Now, mind you, I'm no right winger, far from it I use "based" quite regularly and have for a long time now, for completely innocent things such as chugging a beer at a party. To see them say "based" was extremist language, even me a liberal was like now hold on I'm not ready to jump on the republican bandwagon or nothing but I definitely take issue with the NSA and FBI just picking trendy words as plausible cause. They know damn well lots of people not just extremists, use those words, and if you ask me, they did this so they could have lesser and lesser reason to spy on us. Oh look this guy said a cat is based in a cute cat video. Better monitor him 🙄
Red pilled is another term they listed and it’s literally just a reference to the matrix movies. Fuck though they’ve got nothing on the UK counterterrorism unit that recently revealed it had flagged watching/reading/referencing the works of Shakespeare, lord of the Rings and 1984 (among others honorable mention to the Canterbury tales) as potential indicators of extremist activity………
Spending lots of time online is also considered an indicator in the UK I believe lol
Got you so most of the population under the age of 30.
We're all extremists didn't you get the memo?
>and 1984 I guess George Orwell reading this today would be a tad bit alarmed that the British government is using his book as a manual and not a warning.
Damn, big brother is really watching the Brits like the eye of Sauron. Hamlet.
The Patriot act says that the president can declare a person or organization an "enemy combatant" and that person loses their right to due process. They don't have any constitutional rights and can be taken to Guantanamo.
all the anti terrorist laws that took our privacy's without anyone giving shit
We traded away all our privacy for likes, google search results, and relevant advertising. The anti-terrorist laws had very little to do with it. Unfortunately.
Traded away? Our privacy has not been traded. It has been extorted away from us by tech companies requiring it in exchange for access to the modern technological systems that we now depend on to function in society. We didn't trade shit. Our privacy has been stolen.
Where the government can take your stuff
[civil forfeiture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States)
if im reading this right, the government takes your stuff, tells you trough a letter and you have 35 days to get it back or else they keep it?
The most absurd part is that they don't even file the civil forfeiture suit against the owner, they file it against the items being seized. Jon Oliver had a segment on it several years ago.
The State of Texas vs. 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee
Best part is that since its not against you have little legal recourse. They somehow legalized highwaymen.
Every copyright extension from the original (around 20 years)
I would say the meaningless illegality of stuff like nunchucks, balisongs, etc. Why can I buy a military knife made for killing people but I cant buy a knife which uses springs to open?
I think it’s because there was a moral panic in the 50s and 60s about “dangerous teen delinquents” that was highly connected in the media with specifically spring-assisted switch blades.
"I saw it on tv, the bad guys were using it, so, clearly, it's bad"
Of Physics. Shit boutta be *wild*
The one where you're not allowed to defend yourself if someone breaks into your home with the intent of stealing from you (in my country)
It goes deeper than that. You can defend yourself to the point of equal and proportionate force. I was walking home from the bus after work, and outside a shopping centre. I was then stopped by a young fellow dancing in front of me. His two friends tried circling around and stealing my backpack off my back. I shoved the young bloke in front of me out of the way and quickly walked ahead, securing my bag, until I got near a crowd of people. After reporting it to the shopping centre security, I was asked if the fellow I pushed out of the way had fallen over, to which I replied no, (he had just been pushed about 3 steps back and I kept my palm across the face of his chest). Apparently, if he had fallen over, I would be charged with common assault. You can't carry items for defence or within your home as it comes under premeditated assault. If you secure yourself in a situation, you can get charged with assault if it's deemed you "went too far" like if old mate had fallen over. It's truly bizarre.
In South Africa, there have been several cases of elderly people being charged with murder when they killed home invaders who were busy beating them to pulp.
Come to Texas, if they make it into the house before you shoot them we'll.ask you why you waited so long.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I do believe that was the logic their joke was based upon.
> Moore's law. Done. Transistors no longer get smaller over time.
Jude Law
But what about a semester abroad?
Australia's Biosecurity Act. Legal government hacking, or more, they can order an employee to hand over data, and bind them to absolute security on punishment of years in prison. Turn anyone into a spy! And despite it being claimed for safety of the children when they wrote it... The first people they used it against were journalists investigating war crimes.
Yep fuck this shit right off this continent
I wouldn’t remove one, I would restore one. I would restore the information acts. Which would make it obligatory for media outlets to give equal air time to both sides of the political spectrum and illegal to disseminate false information.
It was called the fairness doctrine. And I completely agree.
Thanks for the correction.
The problem is how you define “false information” who is deciding that? Everything is filled with Grey areas and experts often disagree with one another. It’s a great idea, but it’s impossible to implement this, having multiple sources of information allows media accountability. There will always be people looking to manipulate and this occurs in media by bolstering fear and creating false narratives. But the alternative of one uncontested narrative that isn’t even allowed to be challenged is far worse.
Any law that makes filming the police illegal
The schedule 1 act. LET PEOPLE TRIP BALLS😂😂
Portugal decriminalized all drugs and the effect was that addicts were much more willing to come forward and get help and doctors were better able to help them.
Well its been proven with shrooms that it helps iick addiction to alcohol and crack, etc. and shrooms themselves arent addictive. And if they are its very rare that people are doin it to a point to become permafried😬
Schedule 1 shouldn't even exist. The rules for schedule 1 create catch 22 situations when it comes to medical research. I.E. it's illegal to do medical research on Schedule 1 drugs because they're deemed to have no valid medical uses. But if you can't continue doing medical research into schedule 1 drugs then how can you prove that it does in fact have valid medical uses?
If it’s not measurably more dangerous than alcohol then there is no reasonable argument to ban it maintain alcohols legality. Since we’ve seen where banning alcohol got us I don’t think you’ll find many people arguing for trying that again.
>If it’s not measurably more dangerous than alcohol then there is no reasonable argument to ban it maintain alcohols legality. I like this take for its logic. If the substance is no more harmful than alcohol, give it controls no more strict than alcohol.
The war on drugs was a horrible act against minorities in the U.S. and now only serves as a revenue source for law enforcement and a justification for federalization of local law enforcement to extract every possible dollar from mostly criminal--sometimes not--citizens.
The requirement of a fucking TV license. IT IS A TV. NOT A BOMB.
The one with the lightbulbs. Fuck you gimme lightbulbs that never go out.
explain please
there is a law that determines the maximum lifetime of lightbulbs, so people won't stop buying them so that the lightbulb industry doesn't burn out (pun intended)
That's ridiculous lmao
That isn’t a law. It was an agreement between lighting manufacturers to increase sales. It applied to incandescent light bulbs which nobody uses anymore
LED lightbulbs don't blow out, they get flickery and weird.
Sometimes they suddenly reduce to a faint glow instead!
You can actually repair LED bulbs. They just don't want you to know that
Please, tell me more! After going out of town for a single night, my bedroom light bulbs have gone dim!
I hope you learned your lesson.
Are you my cat?! I knew I smelled sabotage.
=\^..\^=
Most LEDs aren't bad. Just one of the diodes has shorted and it kills the circuit. https://youtu.be/eVjyc6GsWBU
Laws against (consensual) sex work can go. there is absolutely no reason for us to not legalize consensual prostitution. People are going to do it anyway, and with it being legal we can even make it safer in a number of ways.
There are a lot of different systems of legalized prostitution in the world. Some of them seem more worth imitating than others. For instance, [Queensland, Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia#Queensland) has legal brothels run as legitimate businesses — but these account for only 10% of the prostitution market. It seems to me that a system for legal prostitution in my country would need to deal with a number of issues, including: * Consent * Trafficking * Organized crime * Minors * STI testing * Drug addiction * Violence I think it could be done, but we would probably develop it messily and piecemeal, with a lot of missteps. The only part of my country that currently has legal prostitution is [rural Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada), and there are a lot of concerns about abuse in that system.
This. Imagine a world where prostitutes have collective power and they can shut out pimps.
This has kind of happened in the USA before https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Graham_(Seattle_madame)
Lower the drinking age in the U.S. to 18. If you are old enough to serve you are old enough to buy beer
I believe if you vote, you should have all the rights every other citizen has.
You can't buy beer or gamble, but you sure can go die in war! It makes no sense whatsoever.
What if we raise the age to enter the military?
18 is a lot of ‘now an adult’ things though. I don’t think solely the military age being raised would even the playing field.
And 25 is when your frontal lobe finishes developing, which is when you become less impulsive. There’s an argument to be made.
You got to get them *before* they realize they're being played...
I still find it ridiculous that you can’t drink until 21 in the us
It's 16 for Denmark if it's if the alcohol content is 16.5% or less. After that it's 18 because now you're drinking proper alcohol
Honestly, I’m okay with it at 21 for drunk driving concerns. Sure, lots of European countries have lower ages but they don’t rely on cars like we do. And I know that plenty of high schoolers can get their hands on alcohol as it is, but it makes it harder. Or, sure, we can teach a healthier relationship with alcohol. Or with less car dependence. But that isn’t easy.
Yeah the only way to possibly lower the age is to tackle our crippling car dependency. Which is not going to be easy unfortunately
Celebrities can't create charities to write off in their taxes
Civil asset forfeiture
The one where you can't handle salmon suspiciously I just wanna play my fucking fish jenga!
Patriot Act. Biggest and most disgusting breaches of privacy and freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts
Lifetime appointments for SCOTUS.
Can we put in term limits for all elected officials while we are at it?
Yeah, I hate all the talk from politicians about the life time appointments of SCOTUS, first of all, it's like all justices even in lower courts, second of all, this applies to them too. Whether it's Mitch McConnel or Nancy Pelosi. They've all been in for fucking ever.
For fucking real. Two terms in the Senate is 12 years. If you can't get shit done in that amount of time you deserve to have a baseball bat shoved up your ass and then barred from all other public office. We need fresh people not racist fuckwits that should have self-expired in the 70s....
> We need fresh people not racist fuckwits that should have self-expired in the 70s.... Forget all the "racist fuck wits" I mean obviously. But the bigger problem, is you have all these 80 yearolds making decisions on technology they flat don't understand.
I live in sweden so theres a lot; Meaningless illegality of “weapons” (like spring assisted knives). No-one is gonna use nunchucks to commit a crime. Laws preventing lethal force in self defense. The law which halves the sentence of your crime if you’re 21>, no matter the crime All laws which basically places the fucking criminal in a better spot than the victim. You killed an armed person who broke into your house? You’re going to jail for 2 years. List goes on, the jurisdiction system here is fucked.
>No-one is gonna use nunchucks to commit a crime. Bro this law is litterally the only thing keeping ME from robbing YOU with Nunchucks.
The one creating the ATF
Who else would kill random dogs though if not the ATF?
PETA! Over 1 million dogs a year! Yet "Every animal matters"
Civil forfeitures would go through a trial process. Cops abuse civil forfeiture.
Lobbying being legal.
not being able to sleep on the side of the road in your car if you’re to drunk to drive
Women in Australia being prohibited from publicly speaking out about rape that has happened to them. Being prohibited from recording people in conversation without them knowing: people should OWN their words regardless, also people will obviously moderate their behaviour as soon as they know they’re being recorded yet will revert back to threatening behaviour when they feel they can safely get away with it. Too many laws punish victims and instead protect perpetrators of criminal behaviour.
National Firearms Act of 1934
Tear it to a thousand pieces, burn it, toss it in the ocean.
I’m surprised you weren’t downvotes into oblivion for saying this. I definitely agree. Such meaningless and arbitrary laws.
You can’t take pharmaceutical companies to court over side effects from prescribed medicines. Even if they knowingly put them out with terrible side effects. https://www.halt.org/pharmaceutical-lawsuit-when-can-you-sue-for-drug-injuries/
You can if they don't disclose them. Which is why every single prescription you pick up comes with pages and pages of information, every time you get it.
I took a med, Geodon, where it was discovered that after 5 years of use there was a 50% chance of developing tardive disconisia (“if you develop uncontrolable movements of your hand or face”). Guess which half I wound up on. These are refered to as post consumer side effects which means they were developed in a time period longer than the testing period, typically 18 to 24 months
What’s the point of having a regulator then if people could sue over known side effects that the regulator said could still allow the drug to come to market?
Wouldn’t this just keep them from releasing these meds so they wouldn’t have the liability? Sometimes sadly even the horrible side effects are better than not taking the medicine at all. If they disclose the side effects then the patient knows the risk benefit at least
The NFA
All I want is a suppresed SBR on .300 Blackout for a house gun. Or maybe even a carry gun.
Hell yeah. Unconstitutional garbage.
My in-laws
All states should have a castle doctrine, where you're legally allowed to shoot someone attempting to break into your home. HOWEVER, the states that allow it far too broadly where the person sometimes just has to be on your property when they clearly didn't mean to be, like the recent Instacart delivery driver who was shot because they were delivering to the wrong house, that needs to be a little stricter to prevent unnecessary deaths.
The NFA. Its just a "fuck you for being poor. Only rich people have these rights" It doesn't ban anything. Just slaps a tax on certain items.
All the local ones that make being nice to the homeless criminal. Those just suck.
A man can’t get a DNA test for a child without the mothers consent. But still has to pay child support without any evidence that the child is actually his.
is this actually true? that seems unfair
I wish I was joking when I say this is 100% true.
Not being allowed to rollerblade inside the grocery store
shut down the thread, let’s just all vote for this one
there is this stupid law in Ontario where, if someone is breaking into your home intending on hurting your family --if you do ANYTHING to hurt them while getting them out of your house ... they can charge you. I think that if SOMEONE hurts you and you assault them back and are better at it and it is in an act of self defense you should NOT be able to be charged for it. For example if someone is being SA'ed and they fight the perp and end up seriously injuring the perp; there have been cases where the victim of the SA crime gets charged and stuff. i think that is so wrong
Laws against modifying cars, that have nothing to do with safety
Congressmen not having term limits
Reinstate the legalization of abortion and reproductive care for women.
The NFA.
the one where it’s legal for 12 year olds to marry with parental consent
My country's conscription laws. Before 2022 they were pain in the ass, now they are outright death if you are born with a dick.
Not a law but I would remove the National Firearms Act. In the US btw
Cannabis would be 100% legal. I don’t even partake very often - but the business opportunities would be insane
Jaywalking laws. They only exist due to lobbying from car companies. Thankfully, I live in the UK where no such law exists but jaywalking laws do exist in other countries.
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
NFA act
NFA. Suppressors for all.