We live in a world where Alabama's supreme court has legislated that unfertilized eggs in jars are legally children, and done so in a way that made it spectacularly evident that zero thought was put into potential blowback scenarios. The people ramming these kinds of laws through break Hanlon's Razor by embodying stupidity and malice in equal parts.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
But it's also not not in the bill.
None of those things are solutions to needing an ID to access a website. I can't access your email by going to the library.
I was talking about actual raunchy stuff, because bans for those have already been implemented. Not talking about this bill specifically, but something that, in my perspective, parallels it. Edit: Also, because I think the whole point of the vague language thing is that it leaves the door open for anything at all to be classified as "raunchy internet stuff".
You're gonna need an ID to get to wikipedia in Florida?
The bill uses the phrase "prurient interests" which is a specific term that has been argued about for decades in American law. If they wanted to talk specifically about pornography, they would have invoked obscenity and the Miller test. They didn't use those words, and one would assume lawmakers known for making laws that limit access to sex education might have done this knowingly.
The more likely outcome is that they'd flag content as "objectionable" and just block it. There's already some content from Wikipedia blocked in some regions. That's not novel. It already happens.
Yes, which is why they'll just block it. Which is what I've been saying the whole time.
How about the state of Florida taking legal action against sites that don't comply? Are you willing to take that bet?
You're arguing against something I didn't say. I did not say this bill will make Florida block Wikipedia. What I DID way was that this bill sets the precedent that we have no problem with people setting the groundwork for more egregious vague legal speak that would have the potential to force Wikipedia, not Florida, to self-block some of its content for fear of legal repercussions, not the whole website, which is a thing they already do for some regions.
Are you referring to Champain South Tower? That wasn't a parking garage. It was an 11 story building. That building was borked from the start. The official NIST Report will not be out for another year but preliminary findings are the general contractor deviated from the design drawings when constructing the pool deck, which is what failed first. Inadequate number of reinforcing bars in the concrete per what was spec'd. Yeah, the pitiful condition of the building and poor maintenance over decades hastened it's demise. But, if constructed properly, the building very well may have survived long enough to be repaired and reinforced.
Total strawman argument.
OK 1 year timeline, if I win you have to proxy me a guitar and if you win you get the equivalent shipping cost
1 year timeline you will hopefully not want to proxy a guitar because I am praying the yen finally recovers to some extent so I can stop feeling bad about my income.
NPR stated that the pillars had been inspected and weren't in great shape. Also, they were designed when the ships were smaller and were expected to be able to drop anchor(s) and if not stop, slow down enough that a direct hit to a pillar would not be with "much" force. But with pillars in questionable shape and ships WAY larger now, easy for a ship to take out the bridge. Also the ship in question had a collision in 2016: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...timore-bridge-collapse-ship-dali/73105394007/
