Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20230612/92517-librarians-strike-back-against-comics-bans.html Librarians strike back against book bans.

https://reason.com/2023/06/12/ohio-cops-raided-afromans-house-looking-for-a-dungeon-because-of-a-bizarre-confidential-informant-tip/ Looking for an imaginary dungeon where he apparently kept women chained up.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/12/what-would-aaron-swartz-think-of-reddits-ridiculous-new-api-fees/ People should rely on third party providers less. It's perfectly possible to run a community yourself.

https://reason.com/2023/06/12/desantis-complains-about-the-weaponization-of-state-power-he-should-reexamine-his-own-record/
> "You can't have one faction of society weaponizing the power of the state against factions that it doesn't like," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told the North Carolina Republican Party on Friday night.
Lol.

Apparently, criminals are taking advantage of ChatGPT's tendency to hallucinate. They're noting down non-existent imports, then they're creating malicious packages with those very same names.

I haven't had the time to look at this (I'm presently very busy, I sadly don't have the time to keep a close eye on the E.U.'s slide into repression).

Still, "reasonable" often means "whatever the enforcers want". Over the past twenty years, it has been heavily abused.

A couple years ago in Australia, under the previous government, right-wing conspiracy theorists abused "reasonable" language to censor art, video games, and books. "reasonable" sounds useful on paper, but it's useless in practice for protecting anyone's rights.

I don't think it's a good idea to leave such a door open for puritans, bigots, or other bad actors to abuse it.

Barring outright abuse, it still encourages a service to take ineffective and disproportionate measures. Why wouldn't it? If they get it wrong, they'll get penalized. If they go too far, they won't. It's simpler to just go much further.

You also have to assume that a politician will want to put on an appearance that they are doing something. It's not necessarily going to be what is effective or proportionate. Even chasing tiny things (in the grand scheme of criminality), if it might get them a "win".

https://edri.org/our-work/open-letter-e-evidence-package-lacks-appropriate-safeguards-eu-parliament-must-reject-it/
The "E-Evidence" proposal sets fire to practically every safeguard for requesting information from a service provider in the name of "fighting crime" (don't you hate these over-zealous "tough on crime" types?).

It's terrible for due process, free expression, privacy, and activism.

People seem surprised that chat control, like the OSB, is turning into a "wish list" bill where more and more illiberal, invasive, and frankly, fanciful ideas which "might" help, or which someone wishes would happen, are being piled on.

If you think about the sort of mentality which drives these things though, it isn't very surprising at all. Is it practical, or effective (especially, if you factor in proportionality)? That's a lesser concern to them.

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?