Trying to grant fetuses rights isn't "supporting pregnancies", the line to restricting what pregnant people can do, including abortions, is direct and obvious. The fact that the sponsors of the bills have previously passed bills attempting to restrict abortion is a fact.
Supporting pregnancies would be doing things like passing more healthcare funding, better parental leave, literally just giving money to people with kids. That's not what this bill was about.
The word "potentially" is doing a lot of work there.
In many cases of piracy, the result of not pirating the work would not have been more income for the rights holder, it would have been the person just not acquiring a copy of the work at all.
Yeah, I don't know what Colorado's laws are on this in general, but even if it's technically legal it seems like a huge risk that someone is going to plausibly allege that given the specific facts denying them time off was race/religion/family status/... discrimination. It might be legal (don't know), but it's a stupid policy for a number of reasons.
Phrasing it as "spotting potential swatting calls" is approaching it from the wrong direction.
Instead it should be "confirming that there is probable cause before moving in with weapons". A single call should not probable cause make.
Thanks, I love it.
Speaking for myself I've seen both 10A and ps making these comments. 10A has managed to amass at least -2732 downvotes, ps -653, that's not a trivial amount of interaction. I came across an antiwoke post on the front page (I think just right after it was posted, so bad luck). And I'm holding off advocating people move to kbin until I see a moderating policy that results in banning them.
I'm actually not from the US, I was just giving it as an example because it is the most famous one that unequivocally does include it.
What I'm really saying is "free speech" isn't really one thing. It means different things in different contexts. For instance the breadth of "free speech" you should allow in what you promise to repeat (that's what hosting something is) is much smaller than the breadth of "free speech" that you should not think less of someone for saying is in turn much smaller than the breadth of "free speech" that you should not wield the power of government to punish. And people legitimately disagree on where each of those boundaries lie.
I do think I missed the mark with the comment you replied to rereading it. I raised it because when someone says "It's not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was" they are using the american republican-troll's definition of free speech that means "anything but child porn", and I think your reply was misunderstanding their comment as a result. But I don't think I successfully conveyed my point.
It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.
The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users "right" to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.
And a public good. They keep things cooler when it's really hot out, keep things warmer when it's really cool out, mildly improve air quality, reduces noise pollution, provide measurable mental health benefits, and so on.
Around here removing big trees is illegal, on your property or not. I'm a fan.
Open soil instead of pavement also helps reduce flooding during heavy rainfall since the ground absorbs water instead of just making it run off to somewhere else.
Needs an "allegedly", apart from being a questionable source in the first place (as a random social media account, nothing against the person running it), the source you quoted makes it clear that they aren't confident in their own source.
What is a reddit thread if not a root tweet with a bunch of replies (and replies to the replies) formatted in a way that you see the organization of the replies?
The funny thing about religious fundamentalists is their beliefs frequently outright contradict the written word of their religion...