What could possibly go wrong when you write a vague "eliminate 'harms' to minors" requirement in a bill like the "AADC"?
Newsom's argument for why NetChoice shouldn't vaporize that brazenly unconstitutional bill in court is so lousy.
It has a strong ring of "won't anyone please think of the children?" to try to get someone to ignore how it so brazenly tramples over people's rights.
Follow
Oftentimes, a bill will be far more narrowly worded, and it will still have significant unintended consequences (and might well stop short of it's goals).
This bill has a far wider sweep ("what is 'harmful'?") and consequently has even more room for being, ironically, harmful.
