What I have wanted for a very long time for America:
1. The government cannot ban any speech in advance of publication (eg verbally making the statement; or airing; or publishing etc).
2. If proven in Court that the statement maker: (a) knew the statement was false; (b) made the statement for the purpose of influencing public opinion regarding a law or government policy or election; or for the purpose of marketing a product for sale to the public; then the penalty upon conviction is...:
here is the secret sauce: super severe penalty such as: imprisonment without chance of parole or pardon for 10 years unless you are an elected official or candidate for office, in which event life in prison; or loss of 50% of your assets; or something similar
In other words, keep freedom of speech but if you are intentionally lying to the public for the purpose of impacting government affairs or the sale of a product - then you are going to suffer an incredibly punitive penalty.
>"around half of all sexual abuse cases against children were perpetrated by step-parents"
I understand most commenters are reacting to their masturbatory fantasy aspects of pornography, but I am more concerned about the real life sexual molestation of children. In particular, I am a bit concerned about the statement I quoted above.
First, I want to emphatically state that it is not my intent to minimize the risk of sexual abuse committed by step parents.
I learned 25+ years ago that my wife's grandfather, who lived with them, started raping her when she was 7 years old until he died when she was 14. She never told a soul until she revealed this secret to me when she was 44. I have read an extensive amount about sexual abuse over the ensuing years. What I learned stunned me.
Studies dating back to the early 1900s until when I was researching were consistent: 1 in 3 women reported they had suffered serious ongoing sexual abuse when they were children. These studies were almost all anonymous with most women survivors still keeping the secret.
By definition, this would appear to indicate widespread sexual abuse that was almost certainly not related to step parents ( I did a quick GoogleAI check while writing this which indicates 9-10% of American children live in households with a step-parent ).
My purpose behind this comment is to note that the 50% figure mentioned in the article is based upon actual cases reported by the children - and everything I have learned is that the overwhelming majority of cases are never reported and, indeed, never mentioned to anyone and kept a total secret forever by the abused women.
And it is easy for me to see that reporting of a step-parent is much more likely than the reporting of a parent or grandparent or other close family relative. Indeed, I suspect the a high percentage of the non-step parent cases in England are likely non-family members (again, because of the likely fear and shame felt by the child when the abuse is by a close blood relation).
I felt the need to address the misleading nature of the quote. I am sure it is factually accurate, but misleading for the reasons I've outlined.
Lastly, please remember to look at the next high school graduating class in May/June this year and think to yourself that one in three of the girls receiving their diplomas are likely hiding a terrible life changing secret. It angers me this information is kept so quiet. I urge everyone to take the time to look into this subject. Please educate yourself for the sake of your children - male and female.
Edit: After writing this, I did a quick GoogeAI search and GoogleAI indicated studies show 86% of women never reveal the abuse. It also indicates that the percentage of woman suffering sexual abuse before 18 is one in four, not one in three. It would appear that the information has changed slightly with AI compared to my pre-Ai reading - but it doesn't really change the substance of concern for what is happening behind closed doors.
There is a huge difference between SCOTUS "declines to hear" versus SCOTUS "rules that ..."
Certainly there is no difference to these particular parties. But refusing to hear the case in such an important field as AI is simply an indication SCOTUS is feels it is too early for it to be making rules involving a very fast moving and transformative field as AI.
What it generally means is that the lower court ruling stands and serves as precedent nationwide. Binding precedent in the circuit that handed down the ruling. But another circuit may make a different ruling sometime, and then the Supremes practically have to hear the case to resolve the conflict.
True, but SCOTUS is not required to grant Cert even if a circuit split develops. They may feel the issue needs more time to "mature".
e.g. They may want more cases heard in the lower courts to provide them with a better 'flavor' regarding the nature of legal arguments being made; or more time for a rapidly changing business/social development to evolve and greater clarity emerges.
Rep Raskin said his search of the unredacted Epstein files found Trump listed more than one million times.[1]
And just days ago it was discovered that documents involving FBI investigations into allegations by one or more victims against Epstein and Trump were not released by the DOJ.[2]
I trust Trump still has time to testify to Congress about his connections to Epstein like others have been doing.
Meanwhile yesterday:
>>>the U.S. designated Iran as a “state sponsor of wrongful detention” and demanded that the country release any Americans in its detention.[3]
and that’s somehow okay while you’re driving? i didn’t realize there was a “uhh but if you drop your phone it’s okay to cause a crash” clause in the statutes.
reply