• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion foes move to block online ads for reproductive services

"reproductive services"
 
www.theguardian.com

Daughter of doctor who gave 10-year-old an abortion faced kidnapping threat

Caitlin Bernard of Indiana is named on an extreme anti-abortion website linked to Amy Coney Barrett
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The Indiana doctor who recently provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim whose story has garnered national attention faced serious threats in the past and is named on an extreme anti-abortion website linked to Amy Coney Barrett before she was a supreme court justice.

Dr Caitlin Bernard testified last year, in a case involving abortion restrictions in Indiana, that she was forced to stop providing first-trimester abortions at a clinic in South Bend. She stopped the procedures after she was alerted by Planned Parenthood – who in turn had been alerted by the FBI – that a kidnapping threat had been made against her daughter.


The Guardian reported in January that the names of six abortion providers, as well as their educational backgrounds and places of work, were listed on the website of an extreme anti-abortion group called Right to Life Michiana, in a section of the website titled “Local Abortion Threat”. Bernard was among the list of doctors named on the extremist website.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Let me repeat this for anyone who doesn't understand. They are trying to use state governments to block advertising.

They are at war with women.

www.politico.com

Abortion foes move to block online ads for reproductive services

Digital ad platforms consider their legal risk in a post-Roe U.S.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...
How is their law any different from laws that prohibit aiding and abetting criminals?

If abortion is illegal in a given State, and someone intentionally provides information (regardless of the source) to someone on how to deliberately violate State law and obtain an illegal abortion, then they are guilty of aiding and abetting. Assisting anyone with the commission of a crime is illegal in all 50 States. Why would they make an exception for abortion?
 
Grand Mal said:
Wait a minute. Is this the right advocating for censorship of social media? What would Elon say?
Click to expand...
No need for censorship, since it is already illegal to assist anyone in a commission of a crime. Let them post whatever they want. When they intentionally tell someone how to violate the law, arrest them and throw them in prison. It is no different from how we treat libel and slander laws. Nobody is censored. You can say or post online whatever you like. However, as soon as you violate the law you will be held accountable.
 
Glitch said:
How is their law any different from laws that prohibit aiding and abetting criminals?

If abortion is illegal in a given State, and someone intentionally provides information (regardless of the source) to someone on how to deliberately violate State law and obtain an illegal abortion, then they are guilty of aiding and abetting. Assisting anyone with the commission of a crime is illegal in all 50 States. Why would they make an exception for abortion?
Click to expand...
Well, I go online and see ads for a gun called the Taurus Judge, those guns are illegal in California, but not in other stares.

(Disclaimer: I actually like those and would probably buy one if they weren't illegal here in ca.)

So are you saying government should prevent me from seeing information about those?
 
CaughtInThe said:
Let me repeat this for anyone who doesn't understand. They are trying to use state governments to block advertising.

They are at war with women.




www.politico.com

Abortion foes move to block online ads for reproductive services

Digital ad platforms consider their legal risk in a post-Roe U.S.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...
Abortions are not against the law nation wide to which I say the people trying to block advertising may be breaking the law and those who agree to do so might be breaking the law.

Breaking the law is acceptable in an ALEC Right Wing Fascist Big Government sort of way.

This precedent could be applied at a dangerous level.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Wait a minute. Is this the right advocating for censorship of social media? What would Elon say?
Click to expand...

What would THIS Supreme Court say? Probably "fine."
 
Razoo said:
Abortions are not against the law nation wide to which I say the people trying to block advertising may breaking the law and those who agree to do so might be breaking the law.

Breaking the law is acceptable in an ALEC Right Wing Fascist sort of way.

This precedent could be applied at a dangerous level.
Click to expand...
No, I'm pretty sure that states have the leeway to block advertisements for products and services which are shown in their state. There's no "Constitutional right" to show ads, so it would fall under the domain of the 10th Amendment.
 
Glitch said:
How is their law any different from laws that prohibit aiding and abetting criminals?

If abortion is illegal in a given State, and someone intentionally provides information (regardless of the source) to someone on how to deliberately violate State law and obtain an illegal abortion, then they are guilty of aiding and abetting. Assisting anyone with the commission of a crime is illegal in all 50 States. Why would they make an exception for abortion?
Click to expand...

If a social media group allows content about abortion services, and their product reaches the all states, must they conform to the laws of the anti-abortion states and eliminate this content altogether?
 
j brown's body said:
If a social media group allows content about abortion services, and their product reaches the all states, must they conform to the laws of the anti-abortion states and eliminate this content altogether?
Click to expand...
Unless you can prove that a Constitutional right of the advertisers is being violated by the state law, then the 10th Amendment gives states the right to regulate or ban the advertisement of goods and services in their state.
 
Razoo said:
Abortions are not against the law nation wide to which I say the people trying to block advertising may be breaking the law and those who agree to do so might be breaking the law.

Breaking the law is acceptable in an ALEC Right Wing Fascist Big Government sort of way.

This precedent could be applied at a dangerous level.
Click to expand...
Does freedom of speech apply to advertising?

Since the mid-1970s, as a result of a series of Supreme Court decisions, “freedom of speech” has also come to include advertising— in legal terms, “commercial speech.” The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment applies to advertising because of the importance of commercial information to consumers and the ...

FIRST AMENDMENT FAQS - ChangeLab Solutions​

 
Razoo said:
Does freedom of speech apply to advertising?

Since the mid-1970s, as a result of a series of Supreme Court decisions, “freedom of speech” has also come to include advertising— in legal terms, “commercial speech.” The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment applies to advertising because of the importance of commercial information to consumers and the ...

FIRST AMENDMENT FAQS - ChangeLab Solutions​

Click to expand...

New Supreme Court in town.
 
The Republican party is not ****ing around. They are playing win at all costs. I don't think that Democratic leadership has fully accepted what it's up against.
 
Helix said:
The Republican party is not ****ing around. They are playing win at all costs. I don't think that Democratic leadership has fully accepted what it's up against.
Click to expand...

It hasn't for decades.
 
Glitch said:
How is their law any different from laws that prohibit aiding and abetting criminals?

If abortion is illegal in a given State, and someone intentionally provides information (regardless of the source) to someone on how to deliberately violate State law and obtain an illegal abortion, then they are guilty of aiding and abetting. Assisting anyone with the commission of a crime is illegal in all 50 States. Why would they make an exception for abortion?
Click to expand...


Bullshit.. only in the imagination of internet lawyers is this aiding and abetting.. good lord
 
Ortegas said:
Unless you can prove that a Constitutional right of the advertisers is being violated by the state law, then the 10th Amendment gives states the right to regulate or ban the advertisement of goods and services in their state.
Click to expand...


Do advertisers have first amendment rights?
 
Ortegas said:
No, I'm pretty sure that states have the leeway to block advertisements for products and services which are shown in their state. There's no "Constitutional right" to show ads, so it would fall under the domain of the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

LMAO.. no, they do not.. that is called interstate commerce
 
Glitch said:
No need for censorship, since it is already illegal to assist anyone in a commission of a crime. Let them post whatever they want. When they intentionally tell someone how to violate the law, arrest them and throw them in prison. It is no different from how we treat libel and slander laws. Nobody is censored. You can say or post online whatever you like. However, as soon as you violate the law you will be held accountable.
Click to expand...

Complete fantasy..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom