This looks good. I have to say, for a "Bipartisan Report", the source seems to be exclusively anti-Trump and his administration. So am I, but I don't usually trust news from that type of source.
Does Florida not understand what the first amendment is for? Because I'm pretty sure that this is EXACTLY the sort of overreach that it was written to prevent.
The goal of GOP State Rep. David Borrero’s legislation is to ban all versions of the LGBTQ pride flag from any and all local government buildings, including schools and universities.
The problem isn’t banning political symbols from government buildings, it’s that he’s calling pride “political”.
It's not one or the other though, we're both right. It's a problem they they're trying to make pride political, along with banning of speech that causes no harm to anyone. B
ut at least this is so blatantly unconstitutional and subject to be turned around and used against them if it stands that there's no way it will survive a constitutional review.
It’s not intended to stick around. It’s red meat for the base. “Look, see, we’re TRYING to fight the WOKE agenda, but the DEEP STATE is just too powerful! The only way to SAVE YOUR CHILDREN is to help us remove all potential checks and balances to our complete authority.”
Civil rights ARE political. Anything that relates to governance is political.
The issue isn't that it is political. The issue is that there's a 'side' on this political issue that is wrong. It's not a gotcha to say it is or is not political. The gotcha is "the right wants the violent and total destruction of queer people."
My city flew a pride flag once and our city council turned around and banned all flags other than the US and state flag. We used to fly many other flags for different heritage months and other reasons, but now they aren't allowed because a few people found a rainbow flag offensive.
If he is reelected it will be a Brexit-like self imposed wound on the US that I fear we will never recover from. If we lose Ukraine and weaken NATO, America loses. If he installs cronies willing to break the law for the supreme dictator, America loses. 2024 elections are existential.
I hate to say it, but until we can revamp our education system, educate the “low information voters”, and eventually vote properly with the idea of progressing our nation to help all, every election for the foreseeable future will be existential.
But yes, this one, I agree with you, is really the big one.
Part of the plan is to cancel the election security agency. so I'm not sure there will eventually be other elections where you do all of these things if this one is lost.
I'm against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy's a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I'm not really mad about the outcome here. Not that I'd feel particularly bent out of shape about it if their images WERE revealed because it was pretty fucking easy to not be in that crowd inadvertently.
But we all know that's not why he's doing this. Mike Johnson doesn't believe in privacy or any other rights. He's a true conservative harnessing the apparatus of state to give comfort to his tribe and punish outsiders. He's using power to enforce his preferences and values on others. He's giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States because he approves of the attempt to undermine democracy and execute a fascists takeover of the nation. Because he's a traitor.
The main objective of releasing unblurred images publicly would be to assist with identification and investigation, right? To recruit the larger American audience to help the cops identify people.
Progressives are suddenly VERY enthusiastic to be deputized as cops when it comes to Jan 6.
That was my initial thought, but then I read the article.
DOJ does have that footage. But online sleuths have proven to be an extremely valuable resource in identifying Jan. 6 participants, using the CCTV footage to determine which rioters entered the building and then building a database with the clearest photos of those suspects. They have often used facial recognition for leads and have aided in hundreds of cases against Jan. 6 defendants.
Blurring the footage isn’t the empty gesture I thought it was. All he’s doing is exposing the layout of the building while protecting insurrectionists. Bear in mind that the building was deliberately designed in a confusing way for security purposes.
I'm against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy's a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I'm not really mad about the outcome here
I don't know that I'd agree with characterizing this as doxxing; I'd say it's more in line with reporting. Especially considering many of the terrorists involved in this attack are still at large.
You can have privacy in your private residence or at a private business. If you are in a public space you have never, ever had any expectation of privacy. This is as bad an argument as saying social media removing or censoring posts is against the right to freedom of speech.
That's a cop brain argument. Just because you're out "in public" does not give anyone permission to freely do with your personal information, such as images of you, however they so please. Utter horseshit. Your right to privacy in your affairs travels with you, and having a major political official post images of you which people may use to figuratively and literally attack you for political reasons without due process is about as major a violation as I can imagine, ignoring any other factors or details around that release.
You can make an argument that, this being an honest-to-god protest, maybe these people were conducting them in a fully-public way. I'd maybe buy that. But the burden needs to be pretty damn high on that, and so it's not a stupid little fucker like Mike Johnson's authority to make that decision.
Just because (US) law says that it is OK doesn't mean it is OK. Rights have supremacy over law and when the law stands in the way of rights, the law must change, not the rights. I'll remind you that in other places (e.g., Germany), this "out in public" distinction essentially does not exist.
Removing your rights requires due process, period. The (theoretically) proper agencies to follow that due process have the unredacted footage and so they can go through the procedures to release it justly if they feel it is necessary. Mike Johnson does not get to act as the judge, jury, and executioner in a case like this, no matter how much I expect anyone harmed by that act would be human shit.
We'll have no privacy rights at all in the near future if people keep uncritically accepting the arguments the cops make for when and where privacy exists.
Many rioters were identified by people who knew them based on previous footage. Anyone in the videos is already breaking the law, right? There were dozens of people livestreaming this already… I think you make a good point in general, but in this case I’m not sure I agree. There are places and times with an expectation of privacy, but storming your nation’s capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of a democratic election is probably not one
We don't leave it up to a religious fascist like Mike Johnson to chose who does or doesn't have rights. If a proper investigative body wants help identifying individuals, they can go through the proper procedures to release those images to ask the public for help identifying them. Which includes facing proper costs and consequences if any individuals are inappropriately identified by those efforts.
You're doing what the conservative SCOTUS justices always do when deleting our civil rights -- presuming the crime happened exactly as you believe it did then listing how bad it is in order to justify your conclusion that everyone involved should be drawn and quartered. It's an inversion of due process. Due process happens first, removal of rights second. If you have to remove rights first in order to have due process, there was no due process.
If you think it's a good point in general but don't agree in this case, I think you need to think about it a lot longer. Protecting rights is hard and sometimes requires letting some bad guys enjoy undue freedom. Privacy rights are under all-out assault right now and won't exist soon enough unless we follow rigorous, real principles around them.
I respect your position on this. I’m not clamoring for them to release the footage, censored or not. What is the difference between a public space and a private one, though? If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated? Did I have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Is it different because the government recorded it in this case? Are your rights being removed by the government releasing footage of a “protest” or otherwise? I’m not sure I buy that any rights are being infringed here. I also don’t think I share much in common with SCOTUS. Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
Sorry for the litany of question marks, just curious!
If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated?
Yes, they need to get you to sign a release. Disseminating your images, ESPECIALLY for commercial purposes, without your express consent violates your rights.
Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
It would be different if they followed due process -- that is, they followed relevant protocols (such as getting a warrant). Whether the current state of law adequately requires law enforcement agencies to go through this process is a separate but also very important discussion.
The Pew poll found strong support for policies such as legalizing accessory dwelling units, commonly known as granny flats, on single-family zoned areas; legalizing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes; reforms to create affordable housing development near major transit; and simplifying the housing permitting process.
Efforts to expedite permitting processes gained the broadest support, with 86%, while at the lower end, 49% approved of the ideas of allowing smaller lots and homes to be built closer together.
…
In Minneapolis; Portland, Oregon; New Rochelle, New York; and Tysons Corner, Virginia, new zoning rules that allow more housing have helped slow rent growth, according to a study this year by Pew Charitable Trusts. Towns and cities in the same metro areas that did not reform zoning laws generally saw faster rent growth. While rents nationwide grew 31% nationwide from 2017 to 2023, rents in those four cities all grew under 5%, according to the study.
Despite the favorable polling on housing reforms, local political opposition to new housing development in single-family neighborhoods often can remain strong. People tend to be supportive of more housing in general, just as long as it’s not right next to them.
If you care about affordable housing, make sure to attend your own city council’s meetings to voice support for affordable housing because there is 2-12 NIMBYs already advocating against it.
From Hallandale to Deerfield Beach, local political leaders are becoming nervous about the potential delays in the development of the proposed Broward Commuter Rail service that would operate along the Florida East Coast Railway line.
The immediate chief hurdle: a new rail crossing at downtown Fort Lauderdale’s New River. Mayor Dean Trantalis and business interests that support him want a tunnel. Broward County commissioners and other local leaders favor a bridge.
The next window for a funding application to Washington opens in February and the county is nowhere near the point where it can submit one. If no agreement is reached, some fear that hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost.
Mayor Trantalis is killing the Broward Commuter Rail which in turn is ruining projects throughout SFL. Please contact the mayor’s office and tell his staff that you want Mayor Trantalis to stop blocking the bridge.
Key selected projects include: building a new high-speed rail system between California and Nevada, which will serve more than 11 million passengers annually; creating a high-speed rail line through California’s Central Valley to ultimately link Los Angeles and San Francisco, supporting travel with speeds up to 220 mph; delivering significant upgrades to frequently-traveled rail corridors in Virginia, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia; and upgrading and expanding capacity at Chicago Union Station in Illinois, one of the nation’s busiest rail hubs.
The unfortunate reality is that LA is a city with such insanely bad urban design that it's unlikely the corridor is going to be of huge benefit to someone making the trip, at least in the near term. Their city transportation options need wholesale revision to give intercity transportation a fighting chance; as it is now, you'll just be in gridlock congestion or hours of awful public transportation to get to the departure station, for most people.
LA, like so many postwar-design-pattern cities, have sabotaged themselves terribly. Which to me, weirdly, is all the more reason to just barge on ahead with projects like this. They cannot afford to NOT start fixing their brutally inefficient, totally car-oriented infrastructure. The existing system doesn't work. Can't work. Only de-emphasizing car trips can work.
Politics
Active