Shopping for the right judge.

I mean, he's a protestant evangelical, so he's not a big fan of catholicism, but alongside his fearmongering about muslims, he definitely shows plenty of preference for his particular religion. Here's another quote from the press release:

"I would prefer we focus on reading proficiency so they can read the Bible at home with their family. That’s where religion is best taught: in homes and in churches, with the loving guidance of parents and pastors"

I'm certainly glad he's fighting these religious charter schools, for whatever reason, but I think it's silly to pretend his motivations are anything but bigotry and bias toward his favorite sect.

So, the authors of the article irresponsibly chose not to include this guy's very public extremist rhetoric, but here's a quote directly from the press release:

"Today, Oklahomans are being compelled to fund Catholicism. Because of the legal precedent created by the Board’s actions, tomorrow we may be forced to fund radical Muslim teachings like Sharia law. In fact, Governor Stitt has already indicated that he would welcome a Muslim charter school funded by our tax dollars. That is a gross violation of our religious liberty. "

Looking at the maps, who exactly is being wiped out?

It absolutely can.

Heck just the amount of tax money we know the US billionaires are currently failing to pay (~$160,000,000,000 / year)[1,2] would cover more than 754 Philadelphias using your math, to say nothing of what a fairer tax rate could do.

Idk why Americans are always pretending to be poor, it's the will that's lacking, not the funds.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/03/23/tax-avoidance-costs-the-u-s-nearly-200-billion-every-year-infographic/

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/20/the-wealthy-may-avoid-163-billion-in-annual-taxes-how-they-do-it-.html

Do you think that's safe to say? Here's what some of the experts say about the rewrite. Spoiler alert: the problems were not addressed.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you're very optimistic about the bill's authors, but very doubtful about all the first amendment lawyers explaining the legal consequences of the bill.

Lol, ok, I'm sorry it's so difficult. Anyway, it's included in the link I provided above, but the ACLU, EFF, GLAAD and over 90 organizations have sent an open letter to congress outlining the dangers in this bill, so those 'claims' shouldn't be too hard to verify.

Again, I think you are being very naive about the language in this bill, and attempting to apply a common use interpretation, rather than a legal interpretation. It doesn't matter what the bill says to you, it matters what the bill means for the legal system.

Why do you think that so many legal & tech professionals are up in arms about this bill? Here is more information about the GOP plans to use this bill to censor LGBTQIA+ content.

I think the conversation should be preventing abuse of laws in general.

How do you expect this to happen in the real world? The GOP is very open about their plans to abuse this law, how do you expect to stop them?

You are definitely not a lawyer, and the people backing these bills intentionally use language that creates a specious justification for the erosion of privacy and freedom online.

This bill will require everyone to start using their government ID to post just about anything online, while allowing state AGs to censor basically anything they want in bad faith.

The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing hate group, has already made clear that they will use this to censor any/all LGBTQIA+ material.

Here is a lawyer providing a more detailed thread explaining the issues with this bill.

im honestly surprised you're using kbin or any federated service with that take lol, how could you simultaneously be for federation but also against it?

This is a silly perspective to me, but apparently it is a common misconception about federation.

IMO, just because you can federate doesn't mean you should... In fact, the ability to defederate is one of the most appealing aspects of a federated system, as a means of mitigating problematic content.

The front door to your house opens, but you don't have to open it for everyone.

Gmail blocks a ton of smaller email services for generating spam / scams / malicious activity, just because a protocol is open doesn't mean it has to tolerate problematic content.

The issue is the stuff I post being monetized by Zuck et al. I'm not interested in providing free content for billionaires.