22 Democrats Sponsor a Bill That Could Censor Abortion Info From the Internet

Cmon democrats, you're supposed to be the lesser evil...
- What a simplistic way to look at the problem.
  
  I'm pretty sure no one can "help" the working class
- This isn't about kids and it isn't about abortion it's about limiting people's access to unmediated information. The Democrats have just as much to lose as the Republicans if a third party which is a lesser evil than either emerges. Or, seeing as this is America we're talking about, greater evil.
  Whatever. They don't want people being able to just organise themselves as they please online.
  
  If you can only vote for one option then the better a 3rd party does the more it hurts the main party closest to it. I would expect Democrats and Republicans to be funding 3rd parties in the hopes of improving their chances of getting the most votes.
- They are, but the question has always been how much evil is acceptable to you, because the democrats know what they are and they'll run whoever they can get away with. The worse the Republican option is, the lower the quality of candidate the Dems will forward. They know what their donors want.
- lesser, but still evil.
  The internet threatens their power base and they value their power more than they value any principle
  If the leopards don't come for their faces from the right, those they betrayed on the left will.
- If you continually vote for the lesser of two evils, youll end up with the most imaginable evil.
- They are full of baloney.
- Dems are the faces, and repubs are the heels. But they're both working towards the same goals, for the same boss. Every notice how all the really damaging legislation is always bipartisan?
- Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting evil. It's allowed this country to continue to slip AS A WHOLE in the wrong direction.
  
  Logically? It's actually not. Democrats are still not alt right facists even if this bill is based in stupidity.
  A third party right now can't mathematically win, and the thing is with the current Republican party (which is basically our Nazi party) if you vote for a third party at this point, you are outright throwing your vote to the nazis.
  So, yes- it shouldn't ideally work like this, but in reality, does. And not voting Democrat right now or voting third party means voting for Republicans, which is even riskier, and arguably, voting for an even greater evil given Republicans have our Supreme Court packed right now and we can't afford to lose it any elections from here forward.
  
  Let's put it this way: you have one vote against the worst popular evil by voting for the other evil. So your vote is still necessary to keep the worst one at bay.
  If you don't vote or you use your vote for any other reason, one of the two big parties is still going to fill that seat. So your power in this situation is very limited.
  If you don't want a Democrat in that office, vote Republican.
  If you don't want a Republican in that seat, vote for the Democrat candidate.
  Do anything else and one of the two above will take the post.
  (Some local elections in the US have been improved from FPTP so you may have better options in those.)
  
  Accelerationist begone

Doesn't this fall under first ammendment rights at that point? You can't block discussion and sharing of information online without violating the right to free speech.
Not that these fascists care...
- There are no rights unless they are backed by the threat of violent revolution.
  Who's gonna save you? The Supreme Court?
  
  The Supreme Court is supposed to recognize the dangers of carving out exceptions to civil rights. They stopped a while ago, and started cutting into those rights severely after the PATRIOT act. The dominance of Federalist Society shills on the bench only facilitated this process more.
  But that's come at a cost. Dobbs demonstrated to the public the US Supreme Court is interested in agendas outside public interest (specifically those of the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation). It's now clearer than ever the court system is not going to protect our rights. That includes our lives and persons from law-enforcement brutality and overreach. Your fourth- and fifth-amendment protections have been gutted to insignificance. And a lot of us know that, that our framers traded constitutional monarchy for unchecked plutocracy with extra steps.
  So while we fear the police and the courts, we don't trust them. Crime no longer is synonymous with wrongdoing. Conviction no longer means guilt so much as officers torturing a confession out of someone and judges filling jury boxes with bigoted imbiciles.
  Those who want actual democracy know our establishment system doesn't give them any power, so we're going to obey censorship laws the way we obey speed limits.
  But this mean the public won't be going to law enforcement when it comes to more nefarous criminals. Where not going to report terrorists and mobsters or even CSAM traffickers when drawing attention to ourselves could get our house raided and our kids killed, which is what we face any time we see police (unless we're affluent and in an upper-class neighborhood.)
  The rest of us have more in common with the local rec-drug supplier than we do a police officer. And the dealer won't kill our dog.

Censor something from the internet? good luck lol
- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
  
  That was before the internet was five big websites showing content scraped from the other four.
  
  Source
- Now imagine if they used the law to force Google not to provide any results in a search for abortion. While it may not remove content from the Internet, it effectively removes access to it.
  
  This shows we need an open source search engine that anybody can whip up. To all the devs and volunteers out there, please make something like this, if there's one already, I'll see if I can contribute to the project.
- I smell onions
  
  A 16 year old girl who wants to know what to do after getting pregnant does not
- You say that but the internet of today is a far more "sanitized" place than it once was.
- Lol, this is very doable and happens in the western world all the time.
  Even propaganda is rampant here.
  Maybe it's not gone, but it might as well be if 98% of the population can't find it.

Genuinely baffled that Elizabeth Warren is cosponsoring this. She's even said she regrets sesta fosta. Lawmakers simply don't do their due diligence when throwing their support behind a bill, and its disgusting and disheartening.
- It's pretty obvious that Elizabeth Warren is not, and likely never was any kind of hope for non-conservatives.

This is violently anti-intellectual freedom.
Factual information doesn’t "harm children." If your kid isn’t ready to learn about the world, it’s your job to do some parenting.
The fact that these AGs won’t be using a bill like this to remove right wing propaganda from the internet tells you this is just a censorship tool, at best.
- How many children did you rise? Just asking, because you seem to know how easy it is.

LGBTQ rights activists were complaining about this already, and people didn't listen. Using a more highly motivating issue like abortion is sadly necessary to get people to care. It could censor so many important issues, it's a travesty it's gotten this far.

Slowly and slowly, it feels like parents are having less and less responsibility—and therefore control—over their children's lives. Information is not a problem—if there's something the parent doesn't want the kid to see it up to them to enforce that, not the government.
- Its cause a lot of parents don't want responsibility.
  They want teachers and tablets and cellphones to raise the kids, not themselves.
  We should be cracking down on shitty parents, not passing censorship laws that will be grossly misused by the obvious actors.
- Parents need to be restricting their children's use of the internet. I barely "used" the internet in the sense of interacting and posting until college. That's much harder in this day now. I wasn't even all that long ago I was in high school either. The real challenge now are phones and tablets. It's a lot harder to control what your kids do online. All kinds of devices have web browsers.
  
  Absolutely not. Free access to the Internet and a public library as a kid was crucial to my development. I was raised by a bunch of strict Christians who tried to stop us from reading Harry Potter, for Pete's sake (it had witchcraft in it). I am completely against any censoring of information in the name of 'protecting' children from 'harmful' information. You know what I did as a kid when I came across something I was uncomfortable with? I put it down and found something else to read. Kids are fully capable of making that call themselves. I'm not sure why everyone acts like they can't.
  
  The fact that you barely used it does transfer to kids now needing the same
- Is a parent shitty if, for example, their kids see stuff on the device another kid brought to school and shows around? Or when they visit a friend and their older sibling shows the kids something?
  You all sound like 20 year olds with little life experience who believe you know how parenting works, when in actuality you have 0 idea about it.
  
  Well, I've parented three children, so no.
  Also— there is no reality in which a parent can completely control everything a child sees / interacts with. Nor should they, that's not a healthy growing environment. Neither is one where the government does the same. And I don't think they would by doing this—it would be just as successful as a parent trying. Because laws prohibiting stuff doesn't make them disappear, people would still talk about stuff, and your child would still be mildly exposed in some way.
  My point was that if a parent wants to try to limit what their child sees, that's their prerogative. I do not, however, think it's the government's.

I've been following KOSA. Bad bill.

We want to force the entire world to block information that we don't like (says the small government club)
Good luck with that
- Isn't that what the eu just did to Twitter and Facebook over hamas?
  
  You sure are giving the word information a broad definition there.
  
  Firstly, the EU is not about small government, so half of the joke is lost already. Secondly, rampant misinformation vs. factual information about abortion...
  But sure, it's all the same.

Welp. Guess I’m giving my senator a call today.

I smell onions

I firmly believe abortion is a sin. However, I don't see why each party is fighting so hard for it. Just leave it up to the states.
Also this is goes to show that dystopian laws aren't political
- That’s between you and your god then.
  The state has nothing to do with it.
- Leaving it up to the states will not be advocated for in the long term by either party because that either 1) puts half the country in a dangerous position of not having access to healthcare or 2) still keeps half the country sinning against the emotional support daddy
  Also this is goes to show that dystopian laws aren't political
  The word you're looking for is partisan. This is absolutely a political issue as it is an issue of policy. And it is partisan too; the major parties have vastly different overall views and goals on reproductive healthcare, even if there isn't 100% agreement in each party
- Don't care about separation from church and state then?
  
  Abortion doesn't have anything to do with the church. In fact, there are some churchses that support it.