23
Biden pushes anti-lgbtq censorship bill (nitter.net)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

The bill isn’t anti-lgbt, but it does give way too much power to the attorney general to decide what’s harmful for children. That should be covered in the law, if at all.

In effect it will be, which is the only thing that matters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    No, the law itself isn't anti-lgbt, it just enables anti-lgbt people to abuse it.

    The opposition shouldn't be that it's anti-lgbt, but that is anti-privacy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    If it lets people use it to target the lgbtq+ community, and it is obvious that it will be, it is anti-lgbtq+. Things exist within the context they exist in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's not how that works. The LGBT issue would be resolved by the courts, and how that turns out depends on the merits of the case.

    While the potential for targeting LGBT information is certainly an issue, it isn't the core of the problem here. Even if there was a specific call-out in the bill that LGBT information doesn't count, it's still a bad bill because of the privacy implications. If you prioritize privacy, you get lgbt-friendly results for free. It turns out that keeping the government out of your business is generally a good thing when it comes to the Internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That’s not how that works. The LGBT issue would be resolved by the courts, and how that turns out depends on the merits of the case.

    Or they could just not pass the bill and not risk the hammer coming down on the lgbtq+ community.

    This will directly hurt the queer community, it is obvious. That's why all the prominent queer folks, like the lawyer I linked, are saying as such. What expertise do you have over activists and civil rights lawyers within the queer community who are calling it an anti-queer bill?

    While the potential for targeting LGBT information is certainly an issue, it isn’t the core of the problem here. Even if there was a specific call-out in the bill that LGBT information doesn’t count, it’s still a bad bill because of the privacy implications. If you prioritize privacy, you get lgbt-friendly results for free. It turns out that keeping the government out of your business is generally a good thing when it comes to the Internet.

    It is also an anti-privacy bill. Things can be multiple things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.

    The privacy part is a guarantee since there will be audits and fines associated with not being able to prove compliance.

    If you attack the potential for anti-lgbt misuse, you might get a specific exclusion in the bill, and you're still left with a bad bill. If it attack the privacy issue, there's no way any part of the bill could be amended to satisfy privacy issues, so you just end up killing the bill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.

    Potential? Like, they might not do it? Are you serious? They're going to do it. And it isn't an abuse of the bill, it is using the bill as it is intended.

    I shall again ask for your expertise over the queer folks ringing the alarm over this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    Yes, the attorney general might not. There will certainly be lobbyists, such as Heritage Foundation, so it's a bit up in the air.

    I'm not saying LGBT folks shouldn't be worried. They should. I'm just trying to say that the issue isn't specifically with LGBT issues, the root of the issue is deeper than that. If we fight from an LGBT perspective, we may or may not get an exclusion, but we'll still get the privacy violation. If we fight from a privacy perspective, we could get both.

    By all means, voice LGBT concerns, but also voice privacy concerns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent