Dynadot

domains GoDaddy took down abortionreporter.org

NameSilo

Lox

_____
Impact
7,139
GoDaddy pulled the rug out from another Texas abortion whistleblower tip site that charged users $20 to submit a claim about a violation of the state's new abortion law.

Dan Race, GoDaddy's vice president of public relations, told Insider on Thursday that abortionreporter.org violated its terms of service.

"We have informed abortionreporter.org they have violated GoDaddy's terms of service and have 24 hours to move to a different provider," Race said. "The site violated our terms of service, including but not limited to, Section 5.2."

read more

jjj.png
 

Martin Hunter

Established Member
Impact
14
The law has no criminal enforcement. There is no such thing as reporting it to the authorities as there is no legal enforcement mechanism. The only recourse is via civil court.

When third parties are collecting private information, including medical records, to potentially be used in civil legal action that is an issue.

Any lawsuit would have to show who, what, where, when, etc. when it came to the abortion. People's private information would come out in court, even though they are not being sued.

Regardless of your thoughts on abortion, the entire framework of the law is flawed and is not compatible with almost 250 years of the US legal system.

Brad
Again, I specifically DIDN'T give my thoughts on abortion. I stated I was confused, as I had unsurprisingly heard some incorrect "facts" that had been thrown out around the internet. Your statement that there was no legal enforcement mechanism forced me to Google the topic because surely you had to be mistaken, even a seatbelt ticket has an enforcement mechanism. But no, you are correct. With this law they seem to have basically told Texas's anti-abortion citizens to go out into the streets with binoculars and camo to catch, then sue, any woman's DOCTOR (not the woman herself) performing an abortion. The whole thing is absurd. I didn't realize it was as absurd as it is, I thought it was simply a "no abortion after heartbeat" law with some kind of repurcussion if broken, fines or something. I don't even have any further comment, the law is ridiculous.
 
Again, I specifically DIDN'T give my thoughts on abortion. I stated I was confused, as I had unsurprisingly heard some incorrect "facts" that had been thrown out around the internet. Your statement that there was no legal enforcement mechanism forced me to Google the topic because surely you had to be mistaken, even a seatbelt ticket has an enforcement mechanism. But no, you are correct. With this law they seem to have basically told Texas's anti-abortion citizens to go out into the streets with binoculars and camo to catch, then sue, any woman's DOCTOR (not the woman herself) performing an abortion. The whole thing is absurd. I didn't realize it was as absurd as it is, I thought it was simply a "no abortion after heartbeat" law with some kind of repurcussion if broken, fines or something. I don't even have any further comment, the law is ridiculous.

The "your" I was using was just in general, not just you specifically.

It also gives standing to unrelated, uninjured third parties, even outside Texas.

Abortion aside, the entire framework of the law makes no sense. It could easily be abused in any number of other creative ways.

Brad
 
Last edited:
Impact
845
Please inform me of what search terms you're using to get the results from Google that you mentioned.

I'd also be pretty interested in hearing when Google EVER "tell you what to think and when to think it." I took the liberty of searching "Gab" and "Parler" in reference to your first two comments, and I am assuming that you're commenting on these statements:
Parler:
"Parler is an American microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists. Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon." Wikipedia


Gab:
"Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase. Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the ..." Wikipedia
Literally it is an excerpt from Wikipedia that Google used, whether you agree with its correctness or not, in an attempt to make your finding the information easier. You can't blame Google because leftist fucks get on Wikipedia and spew the same bullshit as they do everywhere else—YOU can also CHANGE Wikipedia content, if you find it to be so inflammatory. I, for one, wouldn't waste my time because I can think and reason for myself, and blaming a search engine for the content that a search returns is just mind boggling and hypocritical—You're doing exactly what the rest of your comment is claiming to be so atrocious, you're labeling Google as some evil, surreal figure out to push some agenda when it is literally only helping provide you with information. Which could be used productively, for example if you were to actually click on the link to the Epik wikipedia excerpt that pops up when Googling "Epik" and go to the Epik Wikipedia page, you'd be able to see a correlation between the three Wikipedia pages you mentioned.

I'm not going to continue spending my time on this as I do actually have things to do, but go back to where google "told you how to think" and click the Wikipedia links for: Epik, Parler, and Gab, then cross reference the people editing the pages. I found three names: Claire Goforth, Drew Harwell, Brodkin, Jon on all three of them, plus saw in the 5 minutes spent looking over the pages A LOT of names that I recognized from at least two of the three pages. Meaning that despite what you may believe, it isn't the search engine telling you anything, it is the people manipulating the data on a website that can be edited by anyone, including yourself (if, in the future, you'd like to correct the people trying to cause the downfall of the USA).

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comment, as I don't want to get into anymore than I already have, I just wanted to say my peace after reading your harsh ridicule of Google for returning a Wikipedia excerpt (along with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of other results on every degree from left to right) in response to your searching for that subject.

You're not good at discerning nuance or seeing past duality, are you?

That's a rhetorical quesiton.
 

Martin Hunter

Established Member
Impact
14
You're not good at discerning nuance or seeing past duality, are you?

That's a rhetorical quesiton.
You're not good at discussing things like a big boy, are you? That was rhetorical as well :)
This isn't grade school, if you can't accept you're incorrect about something then just don't say anything—more ignorance doesn't solve ignorance.
You can't call it nuance when they show excerpts from the Wikipedia page to quite literally every single term that you search, that has a Wikipedia page. FFS pick a battle that actually exists.
Have a good night.
 
Impact
845
You're not good at discussing things like a big boy, are you? That was rhetorical as well :)
This isn't grade school, if you can't accept you're incorrect about something then just don't say anything—more ignorance doesn't solve ignorance.
You can't call it nuance when they show excerpts from the Wikipedia page to quite literally every single term that you search, that has a Wikipedia page. FFS pick a battle that actually exists.
Have a good night.

You may have to go pound some sand, since I could care less what you think. lol.

The tragedy is that like so many others, you're utterly clueless and full of group-think, attempting to cat-call into the digital "ether" as a means to collect virtue tokens. So, have fun spewing bullshit to your fellow lemmings, It's certainly entertaining to read, I'll give you that much. Have a fantastic day!
 
Last edited:

Martin Hunter

Established Member
Impact
14
You may have to go pound some sand, since I could care less what you think. lol.

The tragedy is that like so many others, you're utterly clueless and full of group-think, attempting to cat-call into the digital "ether" as a means to collect virtue tokens. So, have fun spewing bullshit to your fellow lemmings, It's certainly entertaining to read, I'll give you that much. Have a fantastic day!
What's funny is the hypocrisy, you're the one spewing regurgitated nonsense (group-think). I don't even know what cat-calling is in this context and unlike some will admit that, but just like everyone else on the internet now-a-days, instead of actually having a discussion or attempting to debate, you just go straight to denying any thoughts that aren't aligned with yours, refusing to discuss it, and insulting the other person.

At least you don't care what I think, that explains the emotional response to my original reply which gave sources and my reasons for my thoughts as opposed to just plugging my ears and screaming LA-LA-LA until you shut up. You're nothing like "so many others."

Oh, and notice that nowhere in any of my responses to you have I resulted to name-calling. I've given my opinion on your reasoning, your arguments; Never have I called you anything derogatory nor give any indication that I thought myself above you, I guess I'm the idiot for thinking I could have a difference of opinion on the internet. I'll just head out and go see my fellow lemmings (y)
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,069
With this law they seem to have basically told Texas's anti-abortion citizens to go out into the streets with binoculars and camo to catch, then sue, any woman's DOCTOR (not the woman herself) performing an abortion.

You left out the best part. The doctor cannot obtain any damages, attorney's fees or sanctions, even if the claim was meritless.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf#navpanes=0

(i) Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award
costs or attorney’s fees
under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or
any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004,
Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this
section.


So, the vigilantes don't have to be particularly careful, since there is no downside.
 
Top