Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Social Networks The Internet

Supreme Court Declines To Hear Bid To Sue Reddit Over Child Porn (reuters.com) 99

Posted by BeauHD from the off-the-hook dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a bid by child pornography victims to overcome a legal shield for internet companies in a case involving a lawsuit accusing Reddit Inc of violating federal law by failing to rid the discussion website of this illegal content. The justices turned away the appeal of a lower court's decision to dismiss the proposed class action lawsuit on the grounds that Reddit was shielded by a U.S. statute called Section 230, which safeguards internet companies from lawsuits for content posted by users but has an exception for claims involving child sex trafficking. The Supreme Court on May 19 sidestepped an opportunity to narrow the scope of Section 230 immunity in a separate case.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects "interactive computer services" by ensuring they cannot be treated as the "publisher or speaker" of information provided by users. The Reddit case explored the scope of a 2018 amendment to Section 230 called the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), which allows lawsuits against internet companies if the underlying claim involves child sex trafficking. Reddit allows users to post content that is moderated by other users in forums called subreddits. The case centers on sexually explicit images and videos of children posted to such forums by users. The plaintiffs -- the parents of minors and a former minor who were the subjects of the images -- sued Reddit in 2021 in federal court in California, seeking monetary damages. The plaintiffs accused Reddit of doing too little to remove or prevent child pornography and of financially benefiting from the illegal posts through advertising in violation of a federal child sex trafficking law.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 concluded that in order for the exception under FOSTA to apply, plaintiffs must show that an internet company "knowingly benefited" from the sex trafficking through its own conduct. Instead, the 9th Circuit concluded, the allegations "suggest only that Reddit 'turned a blind eye' to the unlawful content posted on its platform, not that it actively participated in sex trafficking." Reddit said in court papers that it works hard to find and prevent the sharing of child sexual exploitation materials on its platform, giving all users the ability to flag posts and using dedicated teams to remove illegal content.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Declines To Hear Bid To Sue Reddit Over Child Porn More

Supreme Court Declines To Hear Bid To Sue Reddit Over Child Porn

Comments Filter:
  • How the fuck did shitty Reddit - with their painful and ugly interfaces, grossly too-powerful mods and painful search and sorting - take over discussion groups?!

    • Re:Can I sue Reddit for being shit? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Zolmarchus ( 2646979 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @08:36AM (#63564023)

      [...] painful and ugly interfaces, grossly too-powerful mods and painful search and sorting [...]

      That you, Slashdot?

    • Re:Can I sue Reddit for being shit? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by timholman ( 71886 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @08:38AM (#63564029)

      How the fuck did shitty Reddit - with their painful and ugly interfaces, grossly too-powerful mods and painful search and sorting - take over discussion groups?!

      You answered your own question. Those "grossly too-powerful mods" have kept the site from being overrun by trolls and scammers like every other discussion group site.

      If you have a popular site, either you enforce moderation with an iron fist or you watch it go down in flames. I'm not defending Reddit as a paragon of open discussion, but at least they have kept the doors open and the lights on.

      • Re:Can I sue Reddit for being shit? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @09:24AM (#63564123)
        I remember when reddit had to start cordoning off r/conservative because their users wouldn't stop brigading (e.g. doing an organized crap flood) to other forums. 90% of the left wing forums there will ban you if you even post to r/conservative. Not because of freeze peach, but because it was the only way the mods of these (often very small) forums could keep up.

        The BLM forums in particular had to do that as they were flooded with conspiracy nutters claiming they were George Soros funded anti-fa techno mermaids or something.

        I can understand why they'd use automated systems to ban r/conservative posters. It was the only way a tiny group of mods can filter out the trolls. But it is kind of annoying since it means anyone who fell down the r/conservative rabbit hole is kind of lost to you. You have to hope other forms and forums reach them.

        Reddit does have some centrist forums. But the modern conservative movement has shifted so far right they seem positively leftist by comparison. I mean, what passes for conservatives just tried to default on the US Debt in exchange for a budget that many said would've done more damage than a default.

        They're not a serious party anymore, and there's a lot of infighting between those lunatics and the few Bush Sr style and Goldwater Republicans left. It spills over to reddit and makes a mess of things.

        • I can understand why they'd use automated systems to ban r/conservative posters. It was the only way a tiny group of mods can filter out the trolls. But it is kind of annoying since it means anyone who fell down the r/conservative rabbit hole is kind of lost to you. You have to hope other forms and forums reach them.

          Sure, automated tools to remove the trash is a requirement since the human moderator time is orders of magnitude less than feasible. But to funnel the most people in and lock them in a fabricated world view you need to shut out the outside world. In cults, people are spirited away to compounds where they aren’t allowed to communicate with family or friends. In r/conservative they ban anyone not spouting the same lies and filth. Simply go over to r/politics and watch what happens, they might not g

          • I suppose it depends if the worldview is fabricate (Score:5, Informative)

            by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @10:47AM (#63564355)
            So your post kind of shows a bit of bias by immediately assuming that the worldview is fabricated or that they're even is much of a worldview. You can make a case for black lives matter forums but the right wing we're going after knitting forums. And honestly you'd have a tough time making a case for BLM forms regardless of what you think of their politics. Forums exist as a place to organize for the movement in question. It's not a place for you to debate whether or not the points of the movement is valid, it's a place for people in the movement to organize and discuss the movement. If you wanted to argue against BLM fundamentally and do it in a manner that was somehow not disingenuous there are other forums for that.

            There's a story about a bar. Two guys walk into it and the bartender yells at him to get the hell out. Journalist is sitting at the bar and he asks the bartender why he did that. Bartender says he recognized some of the patches on their jackets and they were the kind Nazis wear to signal to other Nazis without normies recognizing them.

            So the journalist asks why not just let them drink they didn't seem to be doing any harm.

            So the bartender explains, yeah they won't make any trouble but they'll show up with a couple more of their friends. And then a couple more after that and then a couple more after that. Pretty soon they replaced the patches on their jackets with swastikas because they feel comfortable because there's so many Nazis around.

            When that happens your bar gets a reputation for being a Nazi bar and then it's over. You either shut the bar down or well, you're a Nazi bar now.

            This is the modus operandi of every right-wing extremist on the internet. The intentionally move in to take over spaces. I've watched them do it to a couple of the left wing forums on Reddit. They also did it to large numbers of gaming forums. They tried to do it to the furries and the anime nerds but they got kicked to the curb hard.

            Right wing extremists are well organized and well funded and they have a strong command structure. They're also highly motivated by fear and they are highly isolated by their hateful viewpoints. So they're always looking to recruit and they're always looking to take over social spaces. As a result if you let them in even for a bit they're going to take over and you're going to have to go find another place to be.

            • So your post kind of shows a bit of bias by immediately assuming that the worldview is fabricated or that they're even is much of a worldview. You can make a case for black lives matter forums but the right wing we're going after knitting forums. And honestly you'd have a tough time making a case for BLM forms regardless of what you think of their politics. Forums exist as a place to organize for the movement in question. It's not a place for you to debate whether or not the points of the movement is valid, it's a place for people in the movement to organize and discuss the movement. If you wanted to argue against BLM fundamentally and do it in a manner that was somehow not disingenuous there are other forums for that.

              This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Something like a world view is too complicated of an emergent phenomenon to ever be accurately and faithfully reduced to only a binary true/false value. Rather it is quite a bit more complicated. Further, you must not understand what I’m saying or have little experience, simply debating the way forward with their own party leader words will get you banned. Great example is actually looking at the level of authoritarianism, by your own logic your comment should b

              • you literally said "if the world view is fabricated". Fabricated ideas are false ideas. That's literally what the word means (in the context of ideas).

                You're getting banned because, and I can't emphasize this enough, nobody is there to debate!.

                You're entering forums designed for like minded people to organize and congregate and dropping the ideological equivalent of a deuce. You do that and you're gonna get banned for it. There are forums in Reddit meant for debate. Notable r/politics. Use them.

                • you literally said "if the world view is fabricated". Fabricated ideas are false ideas. That's literally what the word means (in the context of ideas).

                  False. I said to properly indoctrinate people with a fabricated world view you need isolation.

                  You're getting banned because, and I can't emphasize this enough, nobody is there to debate!.

                  Wrong again. I’ve not been banned once because I prefer to watch as that is what I find most interesting. You can’t have environments where any discussion is taboo without having echo chambers, by allowing it to happen you give those right wing people you are afraid are talking over the safe space to fester their views. In your example the property owner should fail to renew the lease of the bar o

                  • Which is common among the right wing. "Indoctrinated" is just a scare word you added to your post. It has no meaning in that sentence.

                    You've been banned because you stuck your nose into a discussion and tried to change it to something else. Something you wanted. That's not breaking a taboo, that's being a jerk.

                    You're trying to use echo chamber as an insult to misdirect and avoid engaging with my point, which is that you're butting in where you don't belong. You have plenty of other places you can ha

                    • Which is common among the right wing. "Indoctrinated" is just a scare word you added to your post. It has no meaning in that sentence.

                      I think you are being obtuse. Indoctrinated is apt because it is accepting a spoon fed version of things without introspection or discussion. It’s 100% on point.

                      You've been banned because you stuck your nose into a discussion and tried to change it to something else. Something you wanted. That's not breaking a taboo, that's being a jerk.

                      Nope, never been banned even once. Being downvoted isn’t the same as banned. I’ve been watching how the right is gaining a foothold and our disagreement is a fundamental basis for how to conduct society. Your fondness for echo chambers is directly fueling the alt right movement, you simply can’t see it because you fail

            • ... always looking to take over social spaces.

              It's not public spaces anymore, they're pushing their conspiracy theories into state politics.

              https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
              https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by JackieBrown ( 987087 )

          But the modern conservative movement has shifted so far right they seem positively leftist by comparison. I mean, what passes for conservatives just tried to default on the US Debt in exchange for a budget that many said would've done more damage than a default.

          No. The Republican party has stayed the same. The Democratic party has shifted left and the Republican's have not shifted in the same direction to keep up. That is why there is a wider GAP.

          The Debt battle happened with 90's republicans and and Clinton. It's not new. You can make a fair argument that Republicans seem to only notice the deficit when their is a Democratic president but it's hard to make the case that they have shifted more right.

          It's pretty easy to demonstrate - simply look at the stated polic

          • No. The Republican party has stayed the same. The Democratic party has shifted left and the Republican's have not shifted in the same direction to keep up. That is why there is a wider GAP.

            The Republican party hasn't stayed the same. The Dems have shifted a bit to the left, while the Reps have gone... up, maybe, on the authoritarian/libertarian axis? Trump moved the Republican party in a populist direction, mostly, with some moves to the right and a lot of doubling down on culture war issues that isn't exactly a change in position, but a more extreme, harder line on an old position. I think the best example of the last part is trans rights. The GOP of 20 years ago would have opposed trans rig

          • Both parties seem to be getting more extreme in opposing directions. It's why the independents are an ever increasing faction. Many people might agree with some of the Democrats or some of the Republicans, but each parties whackos make it harder to stomach. They decide to eventually be independent.

            Politically I would call myself a fairly centralist libertarian. This leads my Democrat friends to equate me to Republicans and my Republican family to think I'm a Democrat. Sometimes it's quite amusing and other

            • Both parties seem to be getting more extreme in opposing directions.

              What would those "opposing directions" be? Left and Right? I am not seeing it. Good and Bad? I am not seeing those either. What would the opposing directions be?

              I would argue that the "extremity" you are seeing is both parties working in concert to ramp up the rhetoric because the cracks in the foundation are obviously more than mere cracks nowadays. The intensity is to keep "us" distracted from one hand reaching into our pocket while the other hand ties us up.

        • But it is kind of annoying since it means anyone who fell down the r/conservative rabbit hole is kind of lost to you.

          It also means that anyone who wants to debate conservatives on r/conservative can't without losing access to a bunch of other forums, which means it strengthens the echo chamber, excluding other views from r/conservative without its own mods doing anything.

          I'm not saying the mods that did that were wrong, it makes sense that it was probably their only option. But that sort of thing does do a lot of damage to free speech.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

          > The BLM forums in particular had to do that as they were flooded with conspiracy nutters claiming they were George Soros funded anti-fa techno mermaids or something.

          Jokes on them because BLM ended up being a positive organization that used all their influence and donations to help millions of black people. /s

        • I mean, what passes for conservatives just tried to default on the US Debt in exchange for a budget that many said would've done more damage than a default.

          Sorry, I have to stop you right there. Lets try this instead: "I mean, what passes for conservatives, who control the portion of the government responsible for creating budgets, just tried to default on the US Debt in exchange for a budget that many said would've done more damage than a default."

      • Slashdot is walking a very similar fine line. They know these political shit-posts draw the most clicks and ad rev, but if they don't reign in the resident political fucktards here, they're going to alienate a lot of their remaining core audience, permanently. Seriously, I can get the inevitable firstpost blaming Party X for Issue Y on every other fucking site on the web. This place is is rapidly losing the last little bit of magic which made it special decades ago.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

        >> How the fuck did shitty Reddit - with their painful and ugly interfaces, grossly too-powerful mods and painful search and sorting - take over discussion groups?!

        > You answered your own question. Those "grossly too-powerful mods" have kept the site from being overrun by trolls and scammers like every other discussion group site.

        Trolls gone - check
        Scammers gone - check
        Child porn - whoops...

        Really?

    • You say they're too powerful, I say they're powerful enough.

      Nothing prevents you from starting your own subreddit, unless of course you've been permabanned for evading subreddit lockouts. In which case... HA HA

      • You say they're too powerful, I say they're powerful enough.

        I pretty much agree with you, but also think there needs to be better oversight of mods. This relying on the few people that actually care enough to do it for free or those who want a power trip need to have better oversight. Sadly it seems Reddit, like many of these social media companies, are trending from abuse in this bottom scraping to firing all oversight and public relations employees.

        • I pretty much agree with you, but also think there needs to be better oversight of mods. This relying on the few people that actually care enough to do it for free or those who want a power trip need to have better oversight.

          If you want better oversight of mods, then only use subs which have satisfactory oversight. If no such oversight exists, then help to create it. Codes of conduct aren't just for users, nor for social issues.

          Reddit wisely chooses not to engage in unnecessary oversight of subs. Leaving each one to be its own private fiefdom (with the exception of activity which is likely to get Reddit in trouble, we all know what that looks like) is the right decision in every way. If you want to create a sub with your ideal

          • If you want better oversight of mods, then only use subs which have satisfactory oversight. If no such oversight exists, then help to create it. Codes of conduct aren't just for users, nor for social issues.

            You suggest relying on completely unpaid people who are abused into fulfilling the task which I obviously am aware of because it is exactly what I suggested could use some work. All I am suggesting is a meta moderator system analogous to what exists here on slashdot, not some authoritarian crackdown on speech.

            Reddit wisely chooses not to engage in unnecessary oversight of subs. Leaving each one to be its own private fiefdom (with the exception of activity which is likely to get Reddit in trouble, we all know what that looks like) is the right decision in every way. If you want to create a sub with your ideal idea of oversight, you can do that! If you choose to use subs which don't have any, you can do that instead.

            You seem unable to grasp simple nuance and degrees in favor of binary extremes. Dividing the people and making each fend for themselves instead of some basic collective rights is the easiest way to

            • If you want better oversight of mods, then only use subs which have satisfactory oversight. If no such oversight exists, then help to create it. Codes of conduct aren't just for users, nor for social issues.

              You suggest relying on completely unpaid people

              You are making things up that I didn't say. In fact, in my comment I explicitly suggest paying. We're done here.

      • Except that's not at all a realistic expectation. Subreddits that don't bring on power mods inevitably get brigaded (and, not coincidentally, flooded with the CP discussed in the article) and, because the existing, sane mods can't handle being overwhelmed with blatantly illegal content, shut down by the admins. Subreddits that do bring on power mods get all of the same issues that 99% of the subreddits have, including said power mods banning literally everyone they've banned previously from every other subr

        • Your nickname is very convenient, I knew what to expect up front, and was not disappointed.

          If you are not willing to become the equivalent of a power mod, you cannot have a popular website with public comments. It just isn't possible. Even a shitty vanity blog is typically rapidly besieged by spambots. Even if the content is moderated and never reaches the page, they will still generate a shitload of submissions.

          There is always work to be done. You can contract it out, you can get it done for free, or you c

          • If you are not willing to become the equivalent of a power mod, you cannot have a popular website with public comments.

            Do you even know what a power mod on Reddit is? It's not just an off-the-cuff term for a moderator. In fact, it's not just your post that seems to be under the impression that the situation of moderation on Reddit is somehow normal compared to other sites.

            • Do you even know what a power mod on Reddit is?

              Yes, it's someone who is a mod of a shitload of subs, and treats it like a job. Which it might be, for some of them, for all I know. And they're known for ruling with a fist, which is the relevant part. And you absolutely have to be willing to do that if you want to be effective.

              In fact, it's not just your post that seems to be under the impression that the situation of moderation on Reddit is somehow normal compared to other sites.

              It is normal compared to other sites in the same situation. Most of those have failed because they didn't do what Reddit does. And here you are thinking that it means they're doing it wrong. Yes, being willing to bring down the ban

              • It is normal compared to other sites in the same situation. Most of those have failed because they didn't do what Reddit does. And here you are thinking that it means they're doing it wrong.

                Yeah, they kind of are doing it wrong. They're in hot water for this, this thing that their mods are contributing to [youtube.com]. It doesn't matter that SCOTUS brought up section 230 and declined to hear the case, I can't imagine that the legal fees and publicity hit was worth it to Reddit. Or maybe it was, and Reddit will continue to be the toxic cesspit we all know and tolerate until something like this inevitably happens again. Who knows? Anyway, I'm done, you have a great day.

                • Re:Can I sue Reddit for being shit? (Score:4, Interesting)

                  by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @11:49AM (#63564663) Homepage Journal

                  Yeah, they kind of are doing it wrong. They're in hot water for this, this thing that their mods are contributing to. It doesn't matter that SCOTUS brought up section 230 and declined to hear the case, I can't imagine that the legal fees and publicity hit was worth it to Reddit.

                  Well, it does actually matter. If it wasn't Reddit, it would have been someone else, and SCOTUS declining to hear the case is actually great news for everyone who loves free speech. Without section 230 there would not only be no Reddit, there would be no Slashdot, there would be no public forums at all really. The only reason Reddit is the big target is that they are successful, and they are successful because... they're doing it right.

                  Or maybe it was, and Reddit will continue to be the toxic cesspit we all know and tolerate until something like this inevitably happens again. Who knows?

                  The internet is a toxic cesspit, because humanity is a toxic cesspit. We've all been pretending that's not true so that we can live peacefully together. Reddit is a cesspit because it's in a cesspit. Every social network (or similar) has problems, and the less authoritarian the management is, the more problems it has. Authoritarianism is its own kind of problem, but it does sometimes solve other kinds of problem.

                  If you have a proposal for how to deal with deliberate disruptors that doesn't involve ban hammers, I'm all ears. If you have a proposal for getting kinder, gentler, yet still effective moderators without paying them, everyone would like to hear it. If you have a practical suggestion for decreasing the number of unhappy people who want to make other people unhappy, please share it with everyone. But if all you want to do is complain without offering any realistic suggestions (preferably based on real world experience) then you're adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion, which is already well-stocked with complaints.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Scalability.
      Unicode support.
      Emoji support.
      Markdown support.
      Image support.

    • How the fuck did shitty Reddit - with their painful and ugly interfaces, grossly too-powerful mods and painful search and sorting - take over discussion groups?!

      Well, its upvote/downvote system, incredibly flawed as it is, *generally* sorts the more-interesting posts from the less-interesting ones. It's far from perfect, but it's "good enough".

      Plenty of mods suck, undoubtedly...but take a look at the "most recently created subreddits" list, and there are dozens of subreddits made *per minute*. Spammers are an unfortunate reality of the modern internet, and there's no good way to address spam that doesn't also curtail free speech in some way. Go back to Usenet and s

      • while you're looking at Usenet as a case study, there's *no* pretty UI for it

        Well, there were a number of clients which prettied up multipost binaries... :)

    • Because people who use discussion groups don't care about ugliness, but they do care about spam.
      • In Reddit's case, they appear to care about having other people's opinions shown to them.

        ( Just like the "Score: -1, Disagree" morons here. )

  • Kiddy porn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @08:46AM (#63564059)
    Want to curtail someone's rights? Want to investigate someone else's computer? Want an account banned? Just say these magic words, and it's yours. After all anyone who would defend an accused pedo must be a pedo, It's easy as one two three. One. wait for the accused party to refuse what you want. Two: make the accusation. Three: Go to the nearest authority figure, who can't be seen as being soft on CP. And the best thing about it is the definition is always expanding! It started with clearly pornographic (not just nude) images of people who were clearly children, but now even a written story, a video of a 20 year old without the right paperwork, or someone whose boobs aren't large enough is CP. And anyone unwilling to expand the definition is probably a pedo. You don't want to defend a pedo do you?

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      Yes it’s all a conspiracy. But more and more we’re seeing the people who yell the loudest about protecting children are merely projecting. Like this fine example. https://lawandcrime.com/crime/... [lawandcrime.com]

      • A conspiracy? Well I wasn't going to bring that up, but the fact that people who went to Epstein Island aren't being investigated looks like a conspiracy to me. Oh, wait, I get it. You just wanted to post a headline with the words "white nationalist" in it while accusing me of... um... believing in conspiracies. Because there's a link, I guess? Maybe do a little brainwork before posting, son.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ksevio ( 865461 )

          Problem is the people that went to the island are the powerful and influential types like Clinton and Trump, so no one wants to get mixed up in it

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      As a drug-dealing terrorist pirate with ties to organized crime, I feel this elevation of pedophilia to be threatening to my status and self-esteem!

  • How to look a the law (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @10:12AM (#63564253)

    If you want to look at law and how courts are supposed to work, you first need to separate the context from the ruling. Substitute something else that's also illegal and then ask yourself what the unintended consequences of making a company whose product was used by the actual perpetrators of the crime also liable. Let's say, for example, that victims of drunk driving (which is illegal) were able to sue car companies on the grounds that they didn't do anything to stop the drunk driver from committing a DUI-related crime. Well, you probably wouldn't get cars banned outright. You might end up at best with a lot of money (that you didn't earn) and that cost gets passed onto to future customers. But you might also wind up with breathalyzers mandatory equipment in every vehicle. Aside from the fact that those cost money and you, dear customer, are going to pay for it. The mere presence of one in your car makes you guilty by association even if you've never touched a drop of alcohol in your life. You're constantly having to prove that you are not guilty of a crime ever time you want to go somewhere. Do you like that idea, comrade? So, the correct legal view is that the car companies have no liability if one of their vehicles was involved in a DUI. The correct approach to any law is to go after the people (yes, PEOPLE, not companies) that commit the crimes. Oh, but that's so hard! Tough shit. That's the way this country works. Get used to it.

    • But you might also wind up with breathalyzers mandatory equipment in every vehicle. Aside from the fact that those cost money and you, dear customer, are going to pay for it. The mere presence of one in your car makes you guilty by association even if you've never touched a drop of alcohol in your life. You're constantly having to prove that you are not guilty of a crime ever time you want to go somewhere. Do you like that idea, comrade? So, the correct legal view is that the car companies have no liability if one of their vehicles was involved in a DUI

      You're too late. [ntsb.gov] Brandon's clown show has already started down that road.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        This isn't new. The idea been discussed for 30 years and the NTSB has recommended this for the last 20 years. Many states already require ignition-interlock devices for individuals accused of DUIs. The most recent call for national legislation was a bipartisan proposal [npr.org] introduced in 2019, when Trump was president. All of this is response to technological advancement: The NTSB has researched this for decades, and cars are now digital machines unlike 30 years ago, so this is now more feasible. It's not a

  • ...hand over that phone. We're going to check it for child pornography. We'll also peruse all your texts and chat feeds, just in case. We also need to have a look at all your contacts to make sure there aren't any known child molesters listed.

  • You can create your own child-porn right now with AI and it's getting better by the day.
    No trafficking needed.
    This will KILL trafficking.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      And in the real world, there is basically no trafficking anyways except in cases so rare they make the international news. The whole thing is an artificially created panic, nothing else. And tons of morons are falling all over themselves to eat the propaganda up.

      • "And in the real world, there is basically no trafficking anyways except in cases so rare they make the international news. The whole thing is an artificially created panic, nothing else."

        Ditto for the people traffickers in Calais that the Brits always complain about.

        These asylum seekers are not morons, they just buy a boat off of Amazon.fr, (from €500 up) delivered 'poste restante' to Calais, the tides are online, marinetraffic.com shows all the ships and boats, including the ones of border patrol and

  • Supreme Court: "Corporations can donate lots of money to political campaigns because corporations are people and money is speech."
    *Companies distribute child porn*
    Supreme Court: "Corporations can distribute child porn because because corporations aren't people."

Slashdot Top Deals

"Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

Close