Civil Rights Law Protects L.G.B.T. Workers, Supreme Court Rules by 1KIKI

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I didn't expect that.

Neil Gorsuch Just Handed Down a Historic Victory for LGBTQ Rights

An unlikely majority followed a straightforward legal theory to outlaw anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination.

Monday’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County revolves around a question fraught with political ramifications: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bar discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity? The law forbids discrimination “because of sex,” but does not mention LGBTQ people. Civil rights advocates have long argued, however, that it is not possible to discriminate against a gay, bisexual, or transgender person without taking their sex into account. So, when an employer engages in anti-LGBTQ discrimination, they are engaging in a form of sex discrimination under Title VII.

This argument rests on textualism, the theory—ascendant in conservative legal circles—that courts should look to the plain text of the law, not legislative history or congressional intent. Most scholars agree that Congress wasn’t thinking about LGBTQ people when it passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. But Congress wasn’t thinking about a lot of things, including sexual harassment, which SCOTUS didn’t outlaw as discriminatory until 1986. Bostock therefore asks: When the text of a law leads to an outcome that Congress probably didn’t envision, should the court still follow the text to its logical conclusion?

In a breezy 29-page opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch said, emphatically, yes. (Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the four liberals.) “An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex,” Gorsuch wrote. “It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision.” And “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” He explained:

Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected employee’s sex is a but-for cause of his discharge. Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.

To Gorsuch, this proposition was apparently so self-evident that he felt little need to elaborate much further. He cited several precedents stretching Title VII beyond Congress’ intent, including a decision prohibiting male-on-male sexual harassment. And he barely responded to Justice Samuel Alito’s raging, incandescent 54-page dissent, which balloons to 107 pages when you count a bloated appendix that includes several dictionary definitions of the word sex and an old enlistment application excluding gay men from the military. Where Gorsuch did bother to provide a retort, he was remarkably dismissive in the face of Alito’s fury, accusing him of adopting a “conversational” definition of sex and overlooking “the statute’s strict terms.” And he charged Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh with refusing to “enforce the plain terms of the law,” abandoning textualism in favor of a murky inquiry into what Congress might have expected.

Alito was clearly wounded by Gorsuch’s claim to the textualist high ground.

More at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-lgbtq-discri
mination-employment.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 15, 2020 3:39 PM

As if they don't have more privilege than just about anybody else in the country already.

*yawn*

Whatever.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 15, 2020 7:17 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
As if they don't have more privilege than just about anybody else in the country already.

Upon taking office, President Donald Trump launched an all-out war against the rights of LGBTQ people—particularly transgender Americans. His administration has used every tool at its disposal to rewrite federal civil rights laws to abolish protections for gay, bisexual, and transgender people. And on Monday, in one fell swoop, the Supreme Court blew up this years long effort by obliterating the legal theory behind Trump’s crusade.

The Trump administration based its theory on an extremely narrow definition of the word sex.

Once Trump took office, he rewarded loyal social conservatives with a push, coordinated by the White House, to wipe out all LGBTQ-friendly regulations:

1) Then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the Justice Department’s determination that the Civil Rights Act safeguards transgender employees.

2) Ben Carson, secretary of housing and urban development, is proposing a rule that would let homeless shelters discriminate against transgender people.

3) Education Secretary Betsy DeVos repealed a rule allowing students to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity at federally funded schools. More recently, her agency announced it will defund schools that prohibit discrimination against transgender athletes—meaning DeVos will not only condone anti-trans school policie, but demand them.

4) And on Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Roger Severino finalized a rule that would let medical providers and insurers deny treatment and coverage to transgender patients.

Federal courts are now all but obligated to invalidate these measures taken by Trump's people.

In each case, the Trump administration insisted it was merely applying the correct definition of sex.

The Trump administration was already defending its anti-trans rules in court. Now it will probably lose every case.

More at https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/scotus-trump-lgbtq-discrim
ination-agenda.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 15, 2020 8:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

FWIW I don't see this as a POLITICAL defeat for Trump, or a victory for identity-politics democrats.

While I'm not sure how Trump will spin this - it depends on how strong the various parts of his base are and who he needs to shore up at the moment - I can imagine him doing something like this:

Trump - at podium
(in familiar NYC aggrieved whine) You see what they're trying to do ... ??? You see ....?
(throws up his hands in exasperation)
(audience in uproar)
But ... (surveys crowd, waits for quiet) ... that's OK. ... ... ... That's OK.

And whatever else he says afterwards, he's made his point, and used this to his advantage.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 15, 2020 8:38 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

It was legal in dozens of states to fire workers based on their sexual orientation prior to Monday's ruling. Gorsuch, who Trump nominated to the court in 2017, wrote the opinion for the six-member majority.

Conservatives expressed frustration at the court's ruling, arguing that the judiciary had stepped into legislative territory. Some singled out Gorsuch in particular for criticism.

"Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards," said Carrie Severino, president of the conservative organization Judicial Crisis Network.

The decision came just days after the Health and Human Services Department finalized a rule that excludes gay and transgender people from discrimination protections under the Affordable Care Act.

Trump also oversaw the Pentagon’s policy barring most transgender people from serving in the military unless they serve under their biological sex. That policy took effect last year following a series of court battles.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/502812-trump-says-we-live-
with-scotus-decision-on-lgbtq-worker-rights

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 15, 2020 8:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Whatever usual bullshit Second posts that nobody reads.

Get bent, dude.

The same Supreme Court that Liberals were sure was going to overturn Roe vs. Wade just did this.

We live in a country where delusions are fostered and mental illness is rewarded.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 15, 2020 8:45 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Whatever usual bullshit Second posts that nobody reads.

Get bent, dude.

The same Supreme Court that Liberals were sure was going to overturn Roe vs. Wade just did this.

We live in a country where delusions are fostered and mental illness is rewarded.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

We live in a country where poor white trash vote for Trump, but rich white men can legally fire your worthless ass for loving Trump. If you claim you are queer for Trump, rather than love Trump, maybe the Supreme Court will get your job back for you.

What Is Discrimination Based on Political Beliefs?

Discrimination based on politics happens when an employer makes job decisions because of an employee’s political beliefs, party affiliation, or civic activities. An employer that, for example, refuses to hire applicants who vote Republican, fires anyone who supports gun control, or demotes someone who runs for the local school board is engaged in political discrimination.

Federal Laws Don’t Prohibit Political Discrimination

Not all forms of discrimination are illegal, however. It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employers to make job decisions based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Other federal laws prohibit discrimination based on age, disability, and genetic information. However, political views aren’t covered by these laws and the laws of most states. This means employers are free to consider political views and affiliations in making job decisions.

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-po
litical-beliefs-or-affiliation.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
We live in a country where poor white trash vote for Trump, but rich white men can legally fire your worthless ass for loving Trump. If you claim you are queer for Trump, rather than love Trump, maybe the Supreme Court will get your job back for you.

Yup. Thank you for illustrating my point for me.

Quote:
What Is Discrimination Based on Political Beliefs?

It is, in tandem with rulings like the one in the OP, proof that all diversity is good except for diversity of thought.

Diversity of Thought is Doubleplus Ungood.

FURTHER ILLUSTRATION OF MY POINT:

Merriam-Webster Is Changing The Definition Of Racism To Reflect Systemic Oppression

https://web.archive.org/web/20200615234257/https://www.forbes.com/site
s/janicegassam/2020/06/11/merriam-webster-is-changing-the-definition-of-racism-to-reflect-systemic-oppression/#767d5c9b3949

Quote:
The current versions of the definition of racism do not tell the full story and this may muddy the waters and limit people’s understanding of what racism is and how it can manifest in our systems and structures. Believing that racism is simply not liking another person based on their race ignores the dark history of racism throughout America’s inception. Racist laws, policies, and practices including Jim Crow laws, redlining, name discrimination and Plessy versus Ferguson all contribute to institutional and structural racism. If the definition of racism doesn’t fully encompass the systemic oppression that Black people have experienced in America, there will be a lack of understanding and acceptance from the wider majority.

Changing the definition of racism to reflect history and systemic oppression will catalyze a shift. This is one small step that will have a great impact for years to come.

And so, by changing the definition of racism, Merriam Webster changes the very definition of Dictionary itself.

The people who run Merriam Webster are activists, and the Merriam Webster Dictionary is trash.

One of these days, Second, I'm hoping that you realize that literally everything that came about both in 1984 and A Brave New World are the compounded results of agendas that over time have been pushed by the Authoritarian Left.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:23 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

One of these days, Second, I'm hoping that you realize that literally everything that came about both in 1984 and A Brave New World are the compounded results of agendas that over time have been pushed by the Authoritarian Left.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

This case was a “hack test” because it was a challenge to the conservative justices to stick by their principles, even when that would mean a liberal outcome.

The conservative justices, to varying degrees, espouse a particular method of judicial interpretation called textualism. It really just means that you look at the text of the law. The idea is, we aren’t looking at legislative intent, we aren’t looking at legislative history, we aren’t going back and trying to figure out what Congress may or may not have wanted this law to mean—we are looking at the words Congress enacted into law, and that’s it.

This case presented a pretty straightforward application of textualism. What does it mean to discriminate because of sex? Can you discriminate in these ways without taking sex into account? If you can’t, then this kind of discrimination is illegal. Simple as that. If you want to argue the other side of this case, if you want to try to argue against LGBTQ rights, you really have to go beyond the text and start looking at what Congress meant when it passed this law in 1964. You have to try to divine the mental processes of lawmakers as they drafted and took votes on this law.

Which is kind of what Justice Alito does in his dissent.

It’s exactly what he does. It’s incredibly hypocritical because he constantly says we are not supposed to be looking at legislative history, we are not supposed to be trying to guess what Congress would have wanted, we’re only supposed to apply the text. And yet, when it turns out the text helps gender and sexual minorities, Alito turns around and says, never mind, no more textualism. When the stakes are this high, he’ll throw all of these terms out that he’d normally spurn and use them to build his way to an anti-LGBTQ conclusion that strays really far from the actual text of the law.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-lgbtq-bostoc
k-abortion-trump-tax-cfpb.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2020 1:46 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Gorsuch draws personal attacks for breaking ranks on gay rights

Some are casting the outcome as a betrayal by President Trump’s first high court nominee and impugning his character.

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, which spent millions to help confirm Gorsuch, said Gorsuch had acted “for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards. This was not judging, this was legislating--a brute force attack on our constitutional system.”

So the man she vouched for in endless television appearances and lobbying efforts is now a sellout, who cares mainly about his popularity with elite media and Ivy League students?

Mark Levin, the radio host and Fox News contributor, said “Roberts no longer pretends to be a judge; now Gorsuch has left his robe behind as well.”

When Gorsuch was nominated, he went through the same dance as every other SCOTUS nominee. While he was picked for his conservative views--just as those nominated by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were chosen for their liberal views--Gorsuch vowed to rule on each case without a predetermined agenda.

“I’m not in a position to tell you whether I’d personally like or dislike any precedent. That’s not relevant to my job,” he testified in 2017--much like nominee Roberts had promised to call “balls and strikes.” Gorsuch also said the gay marriage decision of two years earlier was “absolutely settled law.”

Why, then, is it an act of disloyalty for him to reach a decision in this case that some conservatives don’t like? Were they secretly hoping he was just paying lip service to the notion of being an umpire and would always back their agenda? Wouldn’t that be political deception?

Neil Gorsuch may have lost the affection of some of his conservative supporters, at least for now, but he did show that the pledge he made before taking the job wasn’t empty words.

More at www.foxnews.com/media/gorsuch-draws-personal-attacks-for-breaking-rank
s-on-gay-rights

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Huh.

I always thought that non-discrimination in the workplace was ALREADY settled in case law, but I guess that was just a "California thing". Or maybe a judicial Region IX thing. (We are in Region IX, according to the Federal government.)

Anyway, why would anyone want to support discrimination? Your presence in the workforce should be based on your job-related performance (including how well you get along with your co-workers and subordinates) not on your age, sex, skin color, height, religion, or anything else.

But I wonder why "discrimination" is one of the few government protections extended to the workplace and consumers. Why not extend the right of privacy? Employers have the right to break into your stuff to search it, even if off-property. Google and every other platform hoovers up every bit of info on you. What about due process? Free association? I know someone who had been fired - unjustly IMHO- who was told she could not contact former coworkers, even offsite and during non-working hours. Do employers have the right to do that?

******

Just as an aside, I recently read .... somewhere, I can't remember where ... that Title IX hearings would be using a different procedure.

Title IX hearings are what happens when a person claims sexual harassment. Under previous procedures, the accused could not face the accuser, know what s/he was specifically accused of, call witnesses in his/her defense, and nobody was required to testify under oath. The investigation was done in secret.

I was a witness to a Title IX hearing, and had the privilege of reading the report. In the report, all exculpatory or contradictory evidence was eliminated. (I know this because not only was I interviewed by the investigator, I spoke with others who had also been interviewed.) Any accusation, no matter how weak or unfounded ("He said something bad to me ten years ago, I don't remember exactly what or when but I remember it was bad") was used as "evidence", and the accused had no right to challenge any of the allegations under oath. It was clear to me that a few people - three women, in this case- had colluded to create a case.

I thought the process was vastly unjust. It was unlike any court proceeding or hearings that I've ever attended and offered the accused no protections normally afforded under criminal or even civil law.

In any case, what I read was that title IX hearings would be held more like regular court proceedings.

*****

SIX gays don't have more formal privilege, but they DO have more clout. You could really see this during the AIDS epidemic, which was handled unlike ANY other sexually-transmitted disease in modern history. Contact tracing was DISALLOWED. When does THAT happen, when you're trying to control a deadly sexually-transmitted disease?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:55 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I believe we have no privacy protections generically because they aren't in the Constitution.

But then, look at the data center in Utah. Despite our supposed Constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure, there's that. Maybe the government is exploiting a loophole (I believe it is), but no one seems interested in closing it.

But I'm happy to hear there's been improvement in Title IX procedures!! That's a good thing!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah, here is is: Title IX reforms:

Quote:
itle IX Reforms Will Restore Due Process for Victims and the Accused | Opinion
Buddy Ullman
`

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has released new Title IX regulations that radically change how gender sexual harassment and sexual assault disputes are resolved on college campuses. This is a good thing. I am a liberal Democrat, feminist and advocate for Title IX and women's issues, but the way these disputes have been adjudicated on college campuses using Obama-era administrative guidance has been catastrophic. Those guidelines, encompassed in a 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter, are vague, imprecise, constitutionally and legally dubious and patently unfair toward the accused, contributing to investigation outcomes that are unreliable and too often erroneous. There have been more than 600 court cases filed by accused students challenging unfavorable Title IX rulings, with the majority of the judicial decisions supporting the plaintiffs and scores of additional cases settled favorably prior to judgement.

I am a former faculty member at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland who personally experienced Obama-era Title IX compliance guidelines. Although Obama-era guidance was well-intentioned to combat the deliberate indifference that colleges traditionally displayed toward female students with sexual misconduct complaints, its implementation by amateurish Title IX offices has been a national debacle that has failed accusers and accused alike for the past decade.

During my ordeal, I was not allowed to know the allegations against me, the names of the complainant or her witnesses, have my own witnesses, present evidence on my behalf or defend myself in any way—and I was gagged throughout. Free speech, due process and truth-finding were out the window, and the preordained outcome was unfavorable. I was to learn a year later that the accusations against me were fabrications. The DeVos regulations will eliminate such injustices.

The DeVos rule affords a meticulous and comprehensive framework for Title IX enforcement that promotes free speech and due process and restores fairness, equitability and credibility to these quasi-judicial campus proceedings.

There are many improvements, but the most significant, as well as the most controversial, is the requirement for direct, oral and real-time live hearings that enable cross-examination of all parties, including witnesses, to a complaint. This obligated cross-examination comes with reasonable and well-considered caveats to minimize discomfort and inappropriate interrogation of all participants, including rape-shield protections for the accuser/victim, provisions to require indirect testimony through a surrogate of each party's choice, pre-approval of all propounded questions by the neutral decision-maker and sequestration of parties in separate rooms, upon request.

Cross-examination is widely considered to be the greatest single legal engine ever conceived for the discovery of the truth. Because the ultimate goal of any investigation is to ferret out the truth, cross-examination offers an enormous improvement to the fact-finding process of the previous paradigm. It is iniquitous to rob a Title IX decision-maker of the most effective investigative tool in her/his armamentarium, as DeVos reform opponents are now trying to do. Cross-examination and live hearings promote transparency, winnow out false, frivolous, and unreasonable allegations and maximize the integrity of an investigation—compared to the clandestine model employed in the past, in which testimony was behind closed doors. The new paradigm will benefit victims and accused alike.

It is also important to note that Title IX only applies to less than six percent of American women. If a sexual assault complaint is filed by a woman in the community (i.e., off-campus), she voluntarily acquiesces to cross-examination in a courtroom because it is mandated by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Permitting a supplementary and inferior fact-finding mechanism for resolving Title IX disputes for which only a small minority of women is eligible is inequitable and unfair.

Furthermore, despite arguments by opponents of Title IX reform that a victim of sexual assault is disadvantaged by live hearings, most lawyers and reasonable people would assert that a victim is in the superior position in such a setting. Cross-examination and live hearings are an opportunity, not a shortcoming, for any violent crime victim.

Sexual assault and rape are unspeakable acts of violence and victimization that rob women of their power. Filing charges and facing down their perpetrators in safe surroundings, such as live hearings, provides victims with the occasion to regain that power. No survivor should be denied that prospect. There is no better mechanism to return that power than through confrontation of the perpetrator in a live setting. Denying a sexual assault victim that opportunity is wrong.

https://www.newsweek.com/title-ix-reforms-will-restore-due-process-vic
tims-accused-opinion-1510288

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2020 5:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I believe we have no privacy protections generically because they aren't in the Constitution.

When I say "privacy protections" I'm referring to the 4th Amendment, and using "privacy" as a shorthand for "unreasonable search and seizure".

The reason why we don't have protections from businesses invading our privacy (or conducting "unreasonable search and seizure" if you will) is because the Constitution only limits what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can or can't do. It doesn't limit what businesses can do. Businesses have a curious niche in that they are granted more power and fewer restrictions than either the government or private individuals, and yet they're considered to be "synthetic people" with all of the rights of actual human beings.

Quote:
But then, look at the data center in Utah. Despite our supposed Constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure, there's that. Maybe the government is exploiting a loophole (I believe it is), but no one seems interested in closing it.

Politicians seem more intent on exercising their power than limiting it.

Quote:
But I'm happy to hear there's been improvement in Title IX procedures!! That's a good thing!

I found an article and posted it.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2020 5:54 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I believe we have no privacy protections generically because they aren't in the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
When I say "privacy protections" I'm referring to the 4th Amendment, and using "privacy" as a shorthand for "unreasonable search and seizure".

The reason why we don't have protections from businesses invading our privacy (or conducting "unreasonable search and seizure" if you will) is because the Constitution only limits what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can or can't do. It doesn't limit what businesses can do. Businesses have a curious niche in that they are granted more power and fewer restrictions than either the government or private individuals, and yet they're considered to be "synthetic people" with all of the rights of actual human beings.

As envisioned by some European countries, privacy is more than freedom from intrusive search and seizure by government. It's an affirmative right whether one is in public or at home behind closed doors and curtained windows, and it applies to governments, businesses, and individuals.

So, to get back to the limited 'search and seizure' protections, some even argue that those limitations apply only to the federal government, and not to state governments. So that's one loophole there.

As we've found out, there's no protection against a foreign government doing the dirty work for the US and then 'sharing' its information.

Another is that if you're doing something in public - for example driving down the road - you have no protections against government license plate readers that track you. Similarly you have no protections against government cameras attached to AI facial recognition systems. And so on. So that's another loophole.

There's no protection from business tracking done for commercial purposes; data accumulating and selling, and so on. So that's another loophole.

There's no protection against business 'sharing' its information with government that might otherwise be illegal for government to obtain directly. So all those phone calls and emails stored over in Utah are OK.

And there's no protection against private individuals invading your privacy either.

So there a a ton of loopholes built in, that having an explicit, affirmative declaration of a right to privacy would fix.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2020 12:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

A "right to privacy law" would fix all that.

But my more general point is that our Constitutional rights only limit what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do. So things like "due process" and "freedom of speech" would have to be written as separate laws by Congress. And while criminal law (which applies to individuals) is highly developed as it limits people from stealing from each other, or assaulting or killing each other, or even invading other people's privacy, there aren't equivalent laws for businesses. There are some analogues ... fraud, for example ... but they're mostly found in contract law, as far as I can tell.

And since businesses have considerable tax advantages over individuals, and even a moderately-sized business has considerable more power and money than most individuals, you would think there should be MORE restrictions on business behavior instead of fewer.

So, regulations that apply to business are product safety, worker safety, non-discrimination, labor union laws (undone by "right to work" laws), and (for public business) SEC requirements, anti-pollution regulations, generous tax laws (taxed on after-expenses monies only), and anti-monopoly laws (which never seem to be enforced).

But if a business, through its actions, manages to kill a number of its workers or customers, it would never be charged with murder. Even tho a person doing the exact same thing: slowly poisoning a neighbor over time or tampering with their vehicle with fatal consequences would be guilty of murder.

And because of the nature of "divided responsibility" ("I didn't murder anyone, I just created the loans") it's almost impossible to charge a company officer with murder: Look at the tobacco companies and hospital corporations.

Anyway. this whole "corporations as synthetic people" needs to be re-thought, either to remove the rights of these institutions as "synthetic people" or to bring their responsibilities up to the level of their authority, or both.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2020 12:57 PM

WISHIMAY

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

We live in a country where delusions are fostered and mental illness is rewarded.

....Says the most delusional and mentally ill person I know of....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 19, 2020 3:54 PM