Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202208/what-kind-men-buy-sex-dolls
Yet another case where unusual displays of sexuality get put through a paranoid lens, and when the actual research comes out, it turns out completely benign. Puritanism...

As bad as the Backpage case is in it's own right (the DoJ tried to twist the company trying to help them as evidence of how "evil" they are), it would be a pretty bad precedent to set, if a judge doesn't shut this down.

The previous judge had a conflict of interest in being married to a politician who has a vested interest in them going down. Even then, the prosecution went so far, that even she was forced to declare a mistrial. I hope they can get a fresh judge who is actually impartial.

Desperate prosecutors file motion trying to argue that Backpage founders shouldn't be allowed to mention the First Amendment (or anything else they could use to defend themselves).

That pesky little thing that tends to get in the way of these kinds of abuses of power.

Financial censorship has always been a bit of a problem in the U.S. From Operation Chokepoint under Obama, to more recent efforts against marijuana firms and adult content creators (because some puritan is upset).

In that light, perhaps it isn't so surprising that this is what one company is doing now here.

If you're wondering how it's going with Disney, DeSantis is currently being sued for violating the First Amendment. As it turns out, conditioning a privilege on not criticizing the government is a violation of the First Amendment.

It also appears that Disney is cutting billions of dollars in investment in Florida.

Pointing out that cosplay at a cosplay convention might fall afoul of an "anti drag law", because these laws are very vague and chilling. Not to mention, unconstitutional.

One convention in Florida came up with a new dress code on those very grounds, although they appear to have found their courage after they got backlash for it.

Meanwhile in America.

Naturally, it contains freedom of expression. This is something I like. It contains many other important rights too.

It isn't an exact analogue for the U.S. Bill of Rights, although it would go a long way towards turning Australia from being a country which casually violates people's rights as a matter of course, to being one that is more respectful of that.

https://reason.com/2023/06/09/firing-a-professor-for-left-wing-views-is-unconstitutional/ Conservative activist seated by DeSantis violates First Amendment by firing professor for his views.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-18/ashley-detention-centre-commission-of-inquiry/101344936 Minors raped by guards in Australian prison.

https://charterofrights.org.au A campaign to get Australia to adopt a Bill of Rights (no, it doesn't have a Second Amendment, lol).

Did you know that DeSantis used to work at Guantanamo Bay?

Conservative parents in Utah furious that the Holy Bible was removed from a school district for containing "violent and vulgar" content. This removal was filed by someone trying to make a point about how terrible the book ban law is.

I am extremely suspicious of censorship within prisons. It's important to know if there are any Eighth Amendment violations (i.e. inhumane conditions).

There might be other value in speech / expression as well, perhaps to aid reintegration or political advocacy

https://nysfocus.com/2023/06/06/doccs-prison-blocks-journalism-artists-creative-work New York prisons ban journalism from behind bars.

https://reason.com/2023/06/08/gary-genslers-sec-cracks-down-on-coinbase-and-binance/ SEC cracks down on Binance and Coinbase, alleging that cryptocurrencies are securities like stocks and bonds, and that they're operating as unregistered securities brokers.

These companies reject this characterisation.

https://reason.com/2023/06/08/supreme-court-sides-with-jack-daniels-against-doggy-chew-toy-company/ U.S. Supreme Court rules that doggy chew toy company can't parody another company's trademark because it might "mislead" consumers.

https://reason.com/2023/06/08/a-city-banned-pride-month-themed-library-displays-then-it-threatened-employees-who-criticized-the-decision/
The City of Orem in Utah is criticized for threatening employees who criticized them for not allowing displays highlighting Pride Month, Black History Month, and Hispanic Heritage Month in their public library.

FIRE has sent them a letter to Orem city officials threatening that if they do not cease these incursions on employees' free speech, then they will sue them for violating the First Amendment.

The Backpage case is wild (and has been going on for five years). The site took ads for escorts (which is legal in much of the country, although there may have been ads for prostitution too incidentally, which is far less legal, although still consensual and it's not clear they knew of these).

However, because there may have been a few cases of sex trafficking, they want to hold the site owners liable. This is despite the site co-operating with the police to bring these traffickers to justice.

This is in spite of the Deputy of the Department of Justice admitting back in 2018 that prosecuting Backpage would just drive people underground, and make sex workers much less safe. Indeed, a recent report by the GAO has admitted to that much.

They could have just never taken up this case, or dropped charges after it became ever more evident that this was a terrible idea to begin with, but they insist on pushing this through.

As you would expect, the people who ran the site plan to invoke the First Amendment as a defence. They haven't gotten far enough to use it yet, because of all kinds of delays and prosecutorial misconduct (leading to mistrials).

So, it will be very interesting to see how that goes.

Did you know that until 2009, the United Kingdom's "supreme court" was a bunch of posh guys sitting in the House of Lords? The European Union didn't like that, so the U.K. moved those same lords over to a new "supreme court" and renamed them to "justices".