this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
48 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

436 readers
454 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

By my read, this temporary injunction applies ONLY to the plaintiff states - Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. It doesn't stop it from being applied in the rest of the country.

Here's the judge's order.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I could be wrong, but I think this could be due to how the states' suit is worded? As in, I think it's worded as, "you can't do that in our state," and not, "you can't do that full stop."

From another site:

Attorneys general from 18 other states also sued over the order in federal court in Massachusetts.

Brown [AG filing the suit] noted his lawsuit is similar, but said he felt Washington should lead a separate case because of “specific and unique harms that are brought here.” He also said that “we have a very good set of judges in our bench here in Washington, so I feel like this is the right place.”

(My emphasis.)

So, a good first step, and while this should be struck down in its entirety, my reading is that this was a lawsuit with limited scope, and the injunction matches the limited scope.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago

Agreed. I thought it was important to highlight anyway because it's a detail with a significant impact for a lot of people that hasn't been highlighted in any of the media coverage I've seen.