from the is-everything-bigger-in-Texas? dept.
(Update: The Capitol Police are investigating the release of the photo.)
Texas Congressman Joe Barton has confirmed that an explicit image circulating on social media shows him exposing himself. Barton claims to be a victim of "revenge porn", which was outlawed in Texas in 2015:
Sarah Dodd of Dodd Communications, who is helping Barton respond to the image, confirmed that the image is of him and on Wednesday the Congressman apologized for not using "better judgment" while separated from his wife and in consensual relationships with women. "While separated from my second wife, prior to the divorce, I had sexual relationships with other mature adult women," Barton said in a statement first reported by The Texas Tribune. "Each was consensual. Those relationships have ended. I am sorry I did not use better judgment during those days. I am sorry that I let my constituents down."
[...] Wednesday evening, an unnamed woman came forward to The Washington Post [archive], telling the newspaper that Barton sent her lewd photos, videos and messages when they had two sexual encounters over the course of five years.
In a 2015 phone call, Barton allegedly confronted the woman over her communications with other women, including her decision to share explicit materials he had sent, the Post reported. The woman shared that secretly recorded phone call with the paper and, according to the Post, in that call, he warned her against using the explicit images he had sent her, in a way that would negatively affect his career -- vowing that he would go to the Capitol Hill police over her actions. The woman told the Post she took that phone call as a threat, and she never had any intention to use the materials to retaliate against Barton.
Barton, in a statement released through a spokesman, says it was to stop her from publicly releasing the images as "revenge porn." Revenge porn -- when sexually explicit images are posted online without consent -- was outlawed in Texas in 2015.
Revenge porn is defined by Texas as "visual material" depicting a person's exposed "intimate parts" or engagement in sexual activity, distributed without a person's consent and causing them "harm", and created under circumstances in which the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The depicted person's identity must also be revealed for the defendant to be held liable, but the bar for this is low and includes any information provided by a third party in response to the disclosure of the material.
The city of Washington D.C. also has a revenge porn law. In April, a man was convicted of five misdemeanor counts under the Criminalization of Non-Consensual Pornography Act of 2014. The crime rises to a felony if more than five people viewed the image/video.
The image of Rep. Barton was censored by the Twitter user (⚠ Warning ⚠: contains the image), which may cause it to not be considered revenge porn under the Texas law. The user reportedly claims to also have videos of Barton masturbating.
Here is a guide to revenge porn laws in other states.
Related: MPAA Opposes Minnesota "Revenge Porn" Draft Legislation
Facebook to Fight Revenge Porn by Letting Potential Victims Upload Nudes in Advance
Related Stories
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is opposing draft legislation in Minnesota that would restrict the sharing of "revenge porn," or any explicit images published without someone's consent:
It cited images of Holocaust victims and prisoners at Abu Ghraib as examples of images depicting nudity which are shared without the subjects' consent. The MPAA called for the legislation to clarify that images shared without consent only broke the law if they were shared with an "intent to harass".
In a statement, the organisation said: "The MPAA opposes online harassment in all forms. While we agree with the aims... we are concerned that the current version of the bill is written so broadly that it could have a chilling effect on mainstream and constitutionally-protected speech."
But the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which has campaigned for revenge porn to be made illegal, said an "intent to harass" provision would render the law "incoherent". "It would allow people to distribute private, sexually explicit material of no public concern unless it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their motive was to harass," the organisation said in its response to the MPAA.
HF 2741 at the Minnesota House of Representatives:
A bill for an act relating to public safety; creating a civil cause of action for the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images and nonconsensual sexual solicitation; amending the crime of stalking to include nonconsensual sexual solicitation; expanding the definition of qualified domestic violence-related offense; establishing criminal penalties for nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images and nonconsensual sexual solicitation; clarifying the law of criminal defamation; amending Minnesota Statutes 2014, sections 609.02, subdivision 16; 609.748, subdivision 1; 609.749, subdivision 2; 609.765; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 604; 617.
Facebook to Fight Revenge Porn by Letting Potential Victims Upload Nudes in Advance
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
This new protection system works similar to the anti-child-porn detection systems in use at Facebook, and other social media giants like Google, Twitter, Instagram, and others.
It works on a database of file hashes, a cryptographic signature computed for each file.
Facebook says that once an abuser tries to upload an image marked as "revenge porn" in its database, its system will block the upload process. This will work for images shared on the main Facebook service, but also for images shared privately via Messenger, Facebook's IM app. Potential victims will need to upload nude photos of themselves
The weird thing is that in order to build a database of "revenge porn" file hashes, Facebook will rely on potential victims uploading a copy of the nude photo in advance.
This process involves the victim sending a copy of the nude photo to his own account, via Facebook Messenger. This implies uploading a copy of the nude photo on Facebook Messenger, the very same act the victim is trying to prevent.
The victim can then report the photo to Facebook, which will create a hash of the image that the social network will use to block further uploads of the same photo.
This is possible because in April this year, Facebook modified its image reporting process to take into account images showing "revenge porn" acts.
Facebook says it's not storing a copy of the photo, but only computing the file's hash and adding it to its database of revenge porn imagery.
Victims who fear that former or current partners may upload a nude photo online can pro-actively take this step to block the image from ever being uploaded on Facebook and shared among friends.
We won't be doing this. I don't even want to see hashes of you folks naked.
Facebook asks Australians to send nude photos, for safety
"Worried that an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend might post your intimate photos on the internet? Facebook says it has a solution – as long as you'll hand over the photos first.
The social media giant recently announced its new plan to combat "revenge porn," when individuals post nude photos online without the consent of the subject." http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/11/08/facebook-says-it-needs-your-explicit-photos-to-combat-revenge-porn.html
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @10:10PM (16 children)
Revenge porn is punishment for making a very bad choice (that bad choice being the recording of the image in question).
Society is going down the shitter, because government is slowly outlawing personal responsibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @10:25PM (4 children)
Some seem's you'll have to take personal responsibility for pregnant. Ah! Too good! The paper matches the present of said belief.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @10:29PM
Use better English
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @10:33PM (2 children)
Why can't a man financially abort the baby. "Sure, toots. Go ahead and have YOUR child; I won't be helping you raise it." Remove the state from helping women raise their children, and abortion starts look a respectable, responsible choice.
Of course, if a woman deliberates for months and months, then I have no empathy for her distress when she's told that she's past the cutoff and must deliver the child or face charges of murder.
In the old days, shotgun weddings were expected; that is, taking personal responsibility was expected and, to a degree, enforced.
Nowadays, you can't even allow yourself to think that another person may be overweight; even the thought would be inappropriate "fat shaming". People scoff at the idea of personal responsibility today.
Abort yourself, SoylentNews, you sack of bile.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday November 27 2017, @02:30AM (1 child)
Because a man financially aborting the baby is effectively running from his responsibility.
What you are suggesting is that the woman is the only one responsible in the event of a 'mistake'. Mod me: Disagree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:31AM
She would only be responsible if she decides to give birth to the baby and raise it. Isn't that her decision, not the man's? The woman has more options to get rid of unwanted children.
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 24 2017, @10:54PM (2 children)
You're confused. It's not revenge against the Senator. He's 68 years old. The revenge victims are the people who can't unsee it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:56AM
It's terrorism.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:13AM
Yeah, that big blob of blue colour where the intimate parts are supposed to be is so disturbing … :-)
Actually I think that was not so much revenge porn as revenge fat shaming. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:13AM (7 children)
Society is going down the shitter, because government is slowly outlawing personal responsibility.
Only for Republicans. The rest of us are still held accountable. Hell, Democrats are even held accountable for made-up "scandals" like the Benghazi nonsense
But you are right, that's enough to put our entire society very far down the shitter.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:35AM (6 children)
The response to the Al Franken picture would beg to differ, and there are actual photographs of that.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:41AM (2 children)
He's a pig, an absolute pig. The Senate is disgraced every day that he sits in it. Our fine nation is disgraced every time he plops his ugly butt down in that chair. They're doing an investigation. It will confirm what we already know. There needs to be some form of punishment. I think there's going to be punishment for him.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:09PM (1 child)
Probably the most ironic thing you've posted so far. lol.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:19PM
He forgot the #MeToo.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:55AM (2 children)
Really? Everyone said he was a creep, he made a public apology, and then another one, and the woman said she forgives him. What more do you want? I seriously doubt he'll be reelected after this.
If you're a Republican, however, you can't even get elected anymore without grabbing a few pussies and molesting 14-year-olds. Conservatism is great and all, but it may be time to move on beyond the 15th century.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 26 2017, @11:43AM (1 child)
If you'd bother to check the score you'd see that Democrats are the ones getting outed for uninvited groping and molesting children lately. They're falling like bloody dominoes. Nice attempt at redirecting the attention to the other party though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 28 2017, @08:02PM
Classic Republican re-direction! The Swiftboating of the groppers! Where is Karl Rove, these days? This has his fingerprints all over it. Oh, BTW, it is the Republican Senate candidate from Alabama, Roy Moore, who is accused of child molestation. No Democrats, so far But that Mike Pence sexuality is very creepy.
And the TMB coup de grace! If the other party accuses you of redirection (which I just did), redirect the charge of redirection! Brilliant! Soon no one will know who killed health insurance in America and raised taxes on the middle class. Or perhaps these Republican dirty tricks are becoming old hat? Pedophiles, man, 14 year olds. Jesus!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/quotes [imdb.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday November 24 2017, @10:29PM (1 child)
Phew! I'm glad he cleared that up!
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Friday November 24 2017, @11:21PM
He's holding out a shred of hope for reelection but he doesn't have it easy like Roy Moore.
Barton may be a dirty old man who is past due for retirement, but at least he's cool and hip enough to sext like the millennials.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by vux984 on Friday November 24 2017, @10:43PM (14 children)
The mainstream news has had pretty good coverage of this incident.
Everyone more or less agrees that he is the victim of revenge porn here... except...
He is not entirely an 'innocent' or 'sympathetic' victim (He was still married to his wife at the time; although he claims he was separated... not sure if that's entirely true; or whether these relationships all started after the separation.)
Its also possible that by sending the original image he was also himself perpetrating sexual harassment crimes of his own; as it is not entirely clear that the person he sent this to had wished to receive it. If that's the case, then things get even murkier -- his expectation of privacy largely goes out the window if this image is evidence of his own criminal action. Its still 'revenge porn'... but its also 'evidence of a crime he perpetrated'.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Friday November 24 2017, @11:12PM (10 children)
I'm going to go by Texas law for now although I don't know which state's (or D.C.) laws are going to apply here ultimately.
The image doesn't show his "intimate parts". They were colored out by the person who initially released the image. It doesn't show any sexual conduct either.
That alone could invalidate his status as a victim of revenge porn (in the eyes of the law).
As for this scenario:
I don't think it would be hard to argue that an unsolicited nude photo sent over the mobile surveillance networks carries any expectation of privacy. The Texas law requires that "the intimate visual material was obtained by the defendant or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private".
Finally, the revenge porn law itself could end up getting struck down as unconstitutional.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:34AM (8 children)
"The image doesn't show his "intimate parts". They were colored out by the person who initially released the image."
That depends on how we interpret exposed. There were clearly exposed in the original image and then censored. Is that still an image in which they were exposed? I hear what you are saying; I think a court could go either way.
"I don't think it would be hard to argue that an unsolicited nude photo sent over the mobile surveillance networks carries any expectation of privacy."
I think you could argue the other side just as easily. Phone calls are generally treated as private by the law. I have no idea about something sent via SMS/MMS or maybe it was instagram or something...
"Finally, the revenge porn law itself could end up getting struck down as unconstitutional."
Maybe.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:13AM (3 children)
I don't see such ambiguity. There are no intimate parts in the image. Just as there would not be if the image was cropped to show only the top 50%. For all we know he could have a sock on it.
I found this criticism while researching the story:
http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2015/07/2015-61-unlawful-disclosure-or-promotion-of-intimate-visual-material/ [bennettandbennett.com]
Most revenge porn laws have existed for less than 2-3 years. There's a lot of room for the Supreme Court to take a look at this issue. Not all cases make it that far; it takes the right combination of circumstances. A case involving a Congressman is very high-profile, has different circumstances (Barton is a public figure, and he is accused of harassment), and could attract funding for lawyers on both sides to take it all the way up. I don't think Barton even needs to be involved with the case much.
Reasons to think this case will not go that far: Barton has already accomplished his goal of defending his conduct. Charging someone with revenge porn will only waste time and money and cause further embarrassment. It already looks like he won't run for reelection. Prosecutors may be unwilling to go after the individual unless Barton agrees to testify. And a censored image doesn't seem to satisfy various definitions of revenge porn.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:59AM
"I don't see such ambiguity. There are no intimate parts in the image. Just as there would not be if the image was cropped to show only the top 50%."
I see a distinction between a cropped image and a censored one. The latter is quite a bit more suggestive.
"For all we know he could have a sock on it."
Here you raise the point that a censored image of a picture that showed ones "intimate areas" could be indistinguishable from a a censored image of a picture that didn't. (e.g. a clever censor of a bikini etc could appear to be nude than the original). True.
This gets into an area that isn't really well defined -- and there are other scenarios. What if I photoshop someone elses 'intimate areas' into the photo, and obscure the subjects actual genitals. Strictly speaking that doesn't show the victims genitals. It shows the victims face and body and someone elses genitals. I think this clearly would be in violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the law.
I think that I generally agree with you that the law as written would clearly exclude the photo of Barton. I could also still see a judge ruling either way; although I tend to agree with your position here. But i also expect that if the photo got excluded texas would amend the law to ensure it would be included in a future case. I can't this loophole surviving long if revenge porn sites exploited it.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:01PM (1 child)
FTFY
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:09PM
Puerile!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:42AM (3 children)
What is you take an image with intimate parts exposed, crop it to just depicting the head (so you couldn't even tell that it was from an image with exposed intimate parts), and then publish the cropped image? Before cropping, the image clearly did have the intimate parts exposed, right?
What if instead you crop to an old clock that happened to be in the background of that image, and which you considered interesting? Should publishing that also be considered revenge porn, as the intimate parts of some person were exposed in the original image?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:53AM (2 children)
This was kind of delved into in the other subthread; check it out. For what its worth, I think cropping is different from blocking out content. The latter is much more suggestive that something has been 'blocked' out, but I take your point.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:16AM (1 child)
What if you take a cropped image, but paint over it an arrow with the text "down there are the intimate parts"? That's certainly suggestive; should it also be considered revenge porn?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:06PM
I think this starts to deviate from the image properties itself towards the intent of the person posting them, and the context under which it was posted.
I mean, what if you take just headshots and bikini shots and post them along with a few paragraphs of 'erotic story' about the person, to a site called 'humiliate your ex'. Isn't that revenge porn? I'd say so, even if this law wouldn't recognize it as such.
Should it be legal to do that to someone without their consent... ? I can't really think of a good reason for society to protect people victimizing their exes in this way.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:43AM
Why do I think of Dylan's song "Absolutely Sweet Marie" and the lyric "But to live outside the law, you must be honest" ?
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:30PM (2 children)
"adult mature RUSSIAN women", what do you want to bet?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:18AM (1 child)
Russians! They can't keep getting away with it!
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:35AM
http://www.tmz.com/2010/10/20/hot-russian-spy-anna-chapman-maxim-photo-spread-toless-lingerie/ [tmz.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 24 2017, @11:11PM (10 children)
Some websites will comply with takedown notices when congressional penis is being posted, those are the "free and regulated" web.
Other rogue websites will not comply with such takedown notices, those are the "tarriffed unregulated" web - which carry a tax of 1 cent per bit transmitted to cover the costs of alternative forms of thought-control legislation enforcement.
Sure, the internet is just as free and open as it ever was, you just have to pay a little tax when accessing websites that have not complied with all government regulations.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday November 24 2017, @11:15PM (9 children)
Note: The image doesn't contain congressional penis. It was censored before it was released, not after.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:33PM (7 children)
But don't we all, what with the Republican control of both houses, and the "increase the deficit to give a tax-break to the wealthy" bill, have a little congressional penis in us?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 24 2017, @11:37PM (1 child)
Too little to be captured in the form of revenge porn?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:11AM
Probably. But it will cost the average middle-class American a Thousand. And then there will be the increased cost of health insurance, so the middle class will be doubly screwed. Did you notice that the blurred out portion could have two penises in it?
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:28AM (4 children)
Last I checked in on Trump's tax ideas, "tax breaks for the wealthy" was nowhere to be found in it. It cut taxes on the low end, cut taxes on corporations, and raised taxes on high income bracket individuals. One of us needs to do a lot less Listen-and-Believe-ing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:25AM
Thank you! We're doing the biggest tax cut in the history of the world and the amazing thing is, I won't benefit personally. I'm one of the richest guys ever, as you know. And believe me, I won't benefit at all. But it's going to be tremendous for our companies. Yours, mine, everybody's. I own over 600 companies, I'm sure you have a lot too. The tax cut is a beautiful thing for them. And if we ever die, it'll be tremendous for our heirs. Because we're killing the death tax, we're going to a ZERO death tax. Great news for folks getting ready to die!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:58PM (2 children)
I'm sure the mighty orange had a tax idea like that, I bet he tweeted it - since it seems to fit in 140 characters or less and sounds like something that might have made him feel good to say at some point.
The actual tax bills that are rolling through, what is in them - surely takes more than 140 characters to paint the whole picture, and what comes after when the deficit grows and grows, will we be mothballing aircraft carrier groups to make up the difference?
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 26 2017, @11:47AM (1 child)
Heh, it always cracks me up when someone on the left is all "but... muh deficit!". Yes, the only one in recent history in office while water flowed uphill was Clinton but that was just him being along for the dotcom bubble ride. Actual voting records show that neither party gives the tiniest flying fuck about spending money they don't have.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:29PM
Not sayin' slick willie was magic, or that barry or mr. peanut or any of the others ever did much to "balance the budget," but... throw it under the bus completely and we will end up with runaway inflation, doesn't matter who is doing it - sooner or later the imbalance starts to outweigh the "trickle down stimulus" effects and it starts to hurt, like seriously hurting the value of the dollar to the point that people with lots of them start trading them for other currency, which hurts the value of the dollar further. But, since we're going to be so "great again" we don't need none of that overseas junk here, nohow, right?
There's a liberal-commie documentary on Netflix now (surprise, right?) called Cuba and the cameraman, or something like that. It's actually seems to paint a kind of balanced picture - certainly shows some of the less-than-pretty side of what happened there in the last ~45 years.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:56AM
Ahh, so they're the ones who made him look like a molting Smurf?
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:51AM (9 children)
It so happens that I live in Barton's district, for now. I was already going to vote against him or any other Republican that might beat him in the primaries. Maybe this means the Republican might actually lose. But don't count on it.
The so-called Christians in these parts can easily overlook this very un-Christian behavior that violates the 10 Commandments, in someone whose policies they like. They'll eagerly seize on anything to excuse it, like that it's libel by Democrats, it's a part of the big liberal conspiracy, etc. There's even one house a few blocks away that flies a Confederate flag in the front yard, though the last time I passed by, I noticed the flag was gone. The Democrats need to get a clue, too. Hammer Barton on his sins, and his corruption. And shut up about being all edumacated and qualified, people don't want to hear that crap, they want to know what's in it for them. Will there be more and better jobs for them if they vote for the Democrat or the Republican?
Then there's the problems of Gerrymandering and vote suppression both designed to give the Republicans a big edge no matter who the candidates are. The courts struck down the latest Texas voter ID law, but don't think for a minute the Republicans have given up on that angle. The local newspapers are all "tackers", going whichever way the wind blows, anxious to offend the fewest readers possible by endorsing whoever is most popular with the locals, too afraid of the fundamental change that the Internet has brought and the decline in readership it has caused them to dare to do anything else. The Dallas Morning News actually endorsed the Huckster (Huckabee) in 2008 after McCain had the Republican nomination wrapped up and almost all the other Republicans had dropped out.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:19AM
Incumbent politicians in "safe" Congressional districts have little trouble getting reelected. Barton got 68.7% in the 2016 primary, and 58.3%-39% (2.6% went to a Green Party candidate) in the general election.
Barton previously said he would run for reelection, now he's reconsidering. A Republican might win either way, but it would be safer for him to retire and perhaps expose himself to ladies in person instead of over the phone.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:17AM (5 children)
I'll totally agree with your dislike of gerrymandering - it really gets pretty ridiculous at times. More: it would be easy to fix, by just defining and enforcing a maximum mathematical ratio of circumference to area.
However, I really do not understand the objection to voter ID laws. Voting is an important responsibility, and it only makes sense to ensure that the people voting are (a) allowed to vote, (b) vote only once each, and (c) are who they say they are. Where's the problem in that?
Worried that minorities will have trouble getting IDs? That's not an objection to requiring IDs, that's a reason to ensure that the offices issuing them are fair to everyone.
When my mother passed away (in New Mexico), I specifically contacted the voter registration office to de-register her. From their reactions, it was apparent that no one ever bothers to tell them when someone dies. This ought to be a regular event, but it took me multiple phone calls to even find someone who know what to do. In the absence of voter ID laws, anyone could have voted in her name, or the name of anyone else they see listed in the obituaries.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:30PM (2 children)
Because it's always really a thinly veiled attempt by republicans to make it harder for democrats to vote.
There is simply no evidence of voter fraud.
That's a misdirection. It doesn't exist. Propose a policy that you think is fair.
More importantly, think about it this way -- a voter id system is, at its heart, a swapping of the burden of proof onto the citizen to prove that they are not committing voter fraud when they go to vote. It should be on the state to presume the voter is acting legally unless it can prove the voter is committing voter fraud. Voting is about the most fundamental right a citizen has.
Denying a citizen the right to vote because they can't prove to the states arbitrary satisfaction that they aren't committing voter fraud is beyond the pale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:03PM
Read between the lines! BradleyI3 at least double voted, before he moved ex patrium and then realized he had to stop some Democrat from being able to do the same thing. Republicans know voter fraud exists, because they have committed it themselves!
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday November 26 2017, @02:30AM
That's exactly it. The state puts the burden of proof on citizens to demonstrate they have the right to vote, when it should be the other way around. The state further picks ID methods that favor likely Republican voters, Like, a hunting license of all things is considered acceptable proof. But the voter registration card that the state hands out to voters is NOT enough to get a voter admitted. Why on Earth not? The entire exercise of "registering to vote" is another hoop designed to screen out potential voters, completely unnecessary when there are so many ways to determine residence, and useless for its stated purpose if they refuse to use registration to establish residence and the right to vote.
It's hard enough getting people to the polls at all. The beauty of swarm intelligence is that the collective decision making really is superior to that of even the most well informed individuals. But the Republicans especially seem anxious not to leave election results to the choice of the people, but instead resort to lies, propaganda, and cheating to nudge elections their way, meanwhile brazenly accusing everyone else of cheating at the polls. They just don't get it that such manipulation queers and worsens the decisions of the voters, and for that reason should not be done at all. That is a sophistication that the Republican Party is no longer capable of understanding and accepting. Also, that cheating is digging yourself into a hole that just keeps getting deeper. To win future elections, cheaters have to pull it off again, and again, keep covering up more and more.
There was a time, in the days of Eisenhower, that the Republicans were the party of hard nosed, scientifically founded pragmatism and it was the Democrats who were the misty eyed, impractical hippie dreamers. The Republicans were the Party of Lincoln. Now the Republicans have completely flip-flopped, and sunk to barbarism. I mean, wow, mocking and dismissing science itself? "I love the poorly educated." Under Kennedy and Johnson, the Democrats took the path that Martin Luther King opened, and ended Jim Crow. And what did the Republicans do in response? The freaking Southern Strategy. Rather than stick to their Eisenhower and Lincoln principles, they swooped in and embraced all those racist bigoted voters the Democrats had dumped. Lincoln must have turned over in his grave.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:05PM
Funny thing is, death notices are filed with the government as well as published in the paper. There are parts of the government that will mark you dead and refuse to serve you, even if it was a mistake. But, not the polls... that would be beyond the volunteer poll workers' capabilities to process something like that, and we can't spend a tax dollar on keeping the voter rolls clean of the dead, can we?
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:44PM
Anything the government can use against you, it will use against you. Notice how drivers license and state ID photos in many states are being entered into massive FBI facial recognize databases? This is why you can't trust the government to do a single thing. Fuck voter ID laws. I doubt voter fraud is pervasive enough to make a different, but even if it is, I'd rather have that than voter ID laws. I want to vote completely anonymously (both the actual vote and the fact that I was there) or not at all.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:02PM
So, you're in Texas, and you're thinking anywhere but the central core of the cities will vote Democrat? I think folks in those parts are actually afraid that somebody might spy on their secret ballot and burn a cross in their yard, or worse, if they voted Democrat.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:39PM
Neither of them will respect your individual liberties, most likely. Or does that not matter to the hoi polloi, even though we live in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'? What a nice set of priorities.