news GoDaddy terminates hosting of Texas anti-abortion tip website

mr-x said:

Does collecting anonymous tips about other crimes violate their TOS or just abortion?

Click to expand...

Well, it is not a crime since there is no criminal legal enforcement mechanism. It is not prosecuted in criminal court. The only enforcement is through civilian third parties in civil court.

It is not a crime by definition then -

an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

They can also create their own TOS, so the question is largely moot. That is how private business works.

Brad

bmugford said:

Well, it is not a crime since there is no criminal legal enforcement mechanism. The only enforcement is through civilian third parties.

It is not a crime by definition then -

an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

They can also create their own TOS, so the question is largely moot. That is how private business works. It is perfectly compatible with the Constitution that provides them the same rights you are afforded.

Brad

Click to expand...

I agree. And if the business applies that TOS in a discriminatory manor, it can be sued in civil court.

mr-x said:

I agree. And if the business applies that TOS in a discriminatory manor the can be sued in civil court.

Click to expand...

Sure. Please cite which federal or state law GoDaddy is violating, when they are booting off a doxxing site collecting and storing private medical records from 3rd parties. I am pretty sure that is not a protected class.

Brad

bmugford said:

Sure. Please cite which federal or state law GoDaddy is violating, when they are booting off a doxxing site collecting and storing private medical records from 3rd parties. I am pretty sure that is not a protected class.

Brad

Click to expand...

I'm not an Internet lawyer; I'll leave that to you.

mr-x said:

I'm not an Internet lawyer; I'll leave that to you.

Click to expand...

Well, the party could also sue Epik then as well. Because Epik also told them that website was incompatible with their TOS.

Pretty sure abortion doxxing sites are not a protected class.

Brad

bmugford said:

Well, the party could also sue Epik then as well. Because Epik also told them that website was incompatible with their TOS.

Brad

Click to expand...

This is America. Anyone can sue anyone... unless they are suing you because you provided an illegal abortion apparently.

bmugford said:

Well, the party could also sue Epik then as well. Because Epik also told them that website was incompatible with their TOS.

Pretty sure abortion doxxing sites are not a protected class.

Brad

Click to expand...

Under my hypothesis, they would have to prove Epik or Godaddy applied the TOS in a discriminatory way. Probably not a valid argument.

mr-x said:

This is America. Anyone can sue anyone... unless they are suing you because you provided an illegal abortion apparently.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but something is not a crime or illegal if there is no actual legal enforcement mechanism. The entire Texas law is fundamentally flawed, regardless of your views on abortion itself.

Giving standing to unrelated, uninjured third parts is a patently absurd concept not compatible with the US legal system. It even gives standing to non-Texas residents.

California could do the same thing and make it illegal to own a handgun. No criminal enforcement, but you could civilly sue someone violating it for $10,000...It is just a ridiculous concept.

Brad

bmugford said:

..
Pretty sure abortion doxxing sites are not a protected class.

Brad

Click to expand...

Also, the suit is against the DR, not the patient correct? If the patient information isn't public, it's not doxxing.

It could be a violation of HIPPA laws if private medical information was given. People like to get angry and facts tend to be spun or not matter.

Liberals like to remind people "rights have limits", especially the #1st and #2nd, but will scream bloody murder over "reasonable" restrictions on abortion.

mr-x said:

Also, the suit is against the DR, not the patient correct? If the patient information isn't public, it's not doxxing.

It could be a violation of HIPPA laws if private medical information was given. People like to get angry and facts tend to be spun or not matter.

Click to expand...

It would have to be made public in court. How the hell could a court make a ruling without a plaintiff showing an abortion actually happened? To show that they would need to know who, where, when, etc.

This involves 3rd party medical records. There is no way around it.

Brad

bmugford said:

Sorry, but something is not a crime or illegal if there is no actual legal enforcement mechanism. The entire Texas law is fundamentally flawed, regardless of your views on abortion itself.

Giving standing to unrelated, uninjured third parts is a patently absurd concept not compatible with the US legal system. It even gives standing to non-Texas residents.

California could do the same thing and make it illegal to own a handgun. No criminal enforcement, but you could civilly sue someone violating it for $10,000...It is just a ridiculous concept.

Brad

Click to expand...

Those are legal arguments I'm not qualified to debate but I can spot a false comparison when I see one.

1) the #2A is a enumerated right and even include the words "shall not be infringed" - pretty clear.

2) Abortion is a concocted right which results in the death of another protected individual.

bmugford said:

It would have to be made public in court. How the hell could a court make a ruling without a plaintiff showing an abortion actually happened? To show that they would need to know who, where, when, etc.

This involves 3rd party medical records. There is no way around it.

Brad

Click to expand...

I believe it is possible to have some court records redacted from public view but that is still not doxxing. HIPPA.

mr-x said:

Those are legal arguments I'm not qualified to debate but I can spot a false comparison when I see one.

1) the #2A is a enumerated right and even include the words "shall not be infringed" - pretty clear.

2) Abortion is a concocted right which results in the death of another protected individual.

Click to expand...

You can apply it to anything you want. Right now the Texas law clearly violates Roe v. Wade.
It has been legal precedent for 50 years.

There are many rights, probably the vast majority, that are not specifically laid out in the Constitution. If you want to play a game of "criminalizing" things but making enforcement civil, there are almost endless creative ways to use it.

The entire concept makes no sense legally and will be struck down in any actual court on grounds that the other party has no legal standing and was not injured. This scheme is not compatible with almost 250 years of the US legal system.

Brad

bmugford said:

You can apply it to anything you want. Right now the Texas law clearly violates Roe v. Wade.
That is the law on the books at the moment. It has been legal precedent for 50 years.

There are many rights, probably the vast majority, that are not specifically laid out in the Constitution. If you want to play a game of "criminalizing" things but making enforcement civil, there are almost endless creative ways to use it.

Brad

Click to expand...

1) As I said earlier... All rights have limits, including the #1st.

2) Then those rights are not enumerated and are concocted, inferred, whatever and not protected in the constitution / bill of rights.

Liberals claim all kinds of circumstances are "human rights" when they want you to do something or want to stop you from doing something.

You can argue justice, law, etc... but if it's not in the Bill of Rights, it's up to legal interpretation.

mr-x said:

1) As I said earlier... All rights have limits, including the #1st.

2) Then those rights are not enumerated and are concocted, inferred, whatever and not protected in the constitution / bill of rights.

Liberals call claim all kinds of circumstances are "human rights" when they want you to do something or want to stop you from doing something.

You can argue justice, law, etc... but if it's not in the Bill of Rights, it's up to legal interpretation.

Click to expand...

Under the same concept a state could require someone to be vaccinated. No criminal enforcement.

Civil fines of up to infinity that an unrelated, uninjured 3rd party can sue for, even out of state.

Then let's start a website that collects private medical records from 3rd parties, and uses them against people in court. You fine with that? It is exactly the same concept.

I am not fine with either of them. The concept itself is flawed, regardless of your underlying beliefs on an issue.

Brad