Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective that's darn good.

sorry

COVID doesn't give authority to circumvent due process of laws and changing laws in the name of dictated personal safety. You are in charge of your personal comfort and risk.

its from the 31st of Oct https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2019&sessInd=0&act=77

There' no such thing as bad publicity...

This is about the principle. The parties involved are irrelevant. You should not be able to have an unconstitutional law to stand merely by allowing X time to challenge it.

were the legislators involved?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/#:~:text=The%20Secretary%20of%20Health%20and,in%20response%20to%20COVID%2D19. Perhaps perhaps not

No

Calculated Trump card. PA GOP 3d chess.

@DrSammyD No, you're confused. It is presumed constitutional when passed and continues to be so unless it is successfully challenged, as are ALL laws. There was a window of 6 months open to all, regardless of injury, to challenge the law before it went into effect in April 2020. Act 77 can still be challenged now but that challenge can't affect past elections as the law was in force at the time. Any challenge to Act 77 would only affect future elections so as not to deprive the people who voted under the law of their right to vote.

@TaLoN132 publicity yes, but it would only make him look crazy

@busillis Shouldn't I have a say in how much I put my own life at risk?

Uh, people seem to respond to that kind of crazy. He knows what he's doing.

At risk?

No. You're confused. Courts consistently provide remedy to the injured when they strike down laws.

Due to you giving me COVID.

> @busillis Shouldn't I have a say in how much I put my own life at risk?
@Vegas.James Not in others'.

According to a source the cat was already out of the bag on the covid in the US in early October 2019

@Zuluzeit That depends on your caste. We will let you know if you get a say or not. 😉

I knew in early December. I'm just some dude. They knew earlier.

@busillis No, on that point I disagree. All that will mean is a different group gets to control and manipulate the information. You'd be trading anti-christian liberal thought police who dont want you to say how you really feel about gender, for anti-paranormal materialist thought police who don't want you to say what your really want to do with someone of a given gender. Remember when it was Denis Leary and Prince who were getting moderate? The change is good, we just need to finish the job. Repeal Section 230, so that you choose to (a) moderate and be accountable for how you moderate, (b) not moderate and not be responsible. That's how it was back in the day. To stay out of being liable, platform providers stayed out of the conversation. They also need to go back to, you run your own message board. If someone else doesn't like it, they can start their own. It's LibtardTube haveing the monopoly on webhosted videos that is the problem. The sad part is, it doesn't have to be this way. Simple Machines Form can be set up in 5 minutes, need to post videos like YouTube, use Wedge (a fork of Simple Machines created following a developer dispute between SMF and Nao). If everyone was thier own YouTube, their own Twitter, their own Facebook ... it wouldn't matter what Suckerbuer, Jack Dumbsh!t, or anyone else wanted to sensor.

It's about principle because Trump lost. Trump wins and you might be someone who would still argue that it is unconstitutional, but most wouldn't that are currently saying it is.

If there is a risk it was already at risk... With no publicity.

@busillis Dolores Cahill was saying that months ago but she was outcast

Agreed

So you choose or do you like being told how to handle your safety?

@Autumn_Katrina isn’t that what this whole ‘streaming moment’ is?

You have to use those instances to enforce your principles though.

@Autumn_Katrina movement nor moment

@Autumn_Katrina But it's also a business decision. They cater to the customers they want. People don't like deranged, defective, disturbing diatribes. It's not about moral imperative or even free speech. It's about retaining customers.

Idk...

@Phil I'm about 11 minutes behind, this is in refernece to your message to @Corndog --- what exactly is Texas trying to argue is a remedy in the suit, because I think I have an idea where they do have standing....it may surprise you, but I need to know exactly what they filed if you know the details...

I need to go find something to eat before it's too late...

Too late?

Or they cater content to what their advertisers find to be acceptable. Why did YouTube get rid of Alex Jones?

Their advertisers are advertising to someone.

Or others... If you like your cookie thoughts go to another platform.

Yes, that's the idea.

Alex Jones had a fairly big following on YouTube. He was 86ed.

@Autumn_Katrina https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=