Follow

South Carolina would like to make it so that I, a person who lives in a state where abortion is legal, cannot post on a website also not hosted in South Carolina.

They want website administrators to ban all discussion of abortion rather than take the chance that someone in South Carolina will access abortion information.

The bill is also a template that can be copied by forced-birth aficionados in other states.

The First Amendment doesn’t say that I can write anything I want except about abortion in case someone in South Carolina reads it. If someone panics like they’re hearing cries of “fire” in a theater by reading in what city or state someone can access a medical procedure, they should seek therapy.

Sorry, South Carolina, you don't get to control the internet.

scientificamerican.com/article

@MariaHill Whomever came up with that convoluted garbage should be evaluated for mental competency, because it's more fantasy than Tolkein, Martin, et al combined.
But then I remember that it's the GQP, dystopian fantasy is the realm they inhabit.

@MariaHill It troubles me that they want to do that--and what else they might try to do in that vein--but the truth is nobody has ever succeeded in controlling the Internet, even in small ways that might be beneficial. Some have come close, but only by shutting down physical data transfer (China, North Korea, a few Middle Eastern nations).

@Karen5Lund They cannot literally control the internet except by turning off towers within South Carolina. South Carolinians could still use a portable hotspot.

What the proposed law could do is, Texas-like, prosecute people in other states who help people in South Carolina get abortions, and simply making a post saying that you can get an abortion in Virginia or Maryland would be considered facilitating an abortion. So South Carolina would attempt to go after people in any state that doesn't explicitly protect its residents, effectively silencing them.

That's what I'm writing about South Carolina trying to do to residents of the other 49 states, at least the ones where the attorneys general aren't explicitly protecting residents.

@MariaHill And again the size of the Internet would work against them.

If five people shared information about the availability of abortions outside South Carolina=but visible in SC--the state could try to prosecute them. But if it's five thousand it would be very difficult to prosecute. With retweets, boosts, reposts, or whatever you call them, it could easily be in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Impossible to suppress or prosecute.

@MariaHill They could try to go after the websites, as mentioned in the article, but the largest platforms would throw so many lawyers in their path that they could bankrupt the state trying to pursue it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Democracy Town

Welcome to democracy.town, a Mastodon instance focused on United States politics, run by and for progressives.

All are welcome who follow our guidelines.