SuaSponte2024

Oh, and the perp was still punished for setting fire to the corpse under an obstruction of justice charge.

No, the dead don't matter.

That is, the dead are nonpersons, and have no rights.

Keep in mind the perp is still getting the 30 year sentence for what he did while his spouse was alive.

You cannot perform domestic violence upon a corpse.

Cadaver law always fascinates me.

Not if they wore a Prince Albert accessory cage, they didn't!

Does the article you cited mention Buttigieg? It's behind a paywall for me, alas.

Okay. If this is true... its not
1. Where is the money going?
2. Why are we cutting social services?
3. Why are we cutting Medicare?
4. Why are we cutting school lunch programs?

Like The New Mother by Lucy Clifford?

Thanks!

Not in Illinois, at least, thank goodness.

What do you think of regulatory attempts like this?

What is wrong with my definition?

(I mean, I've been wrong before, and I will be again.)

I think there have been "you'll remember this nonsense" style commercials for a long time, although they sure seem more popular now.

The time for me to stop watching YouTube altogether feels like it's rapidly approaching.

Oh, you are defining censorship as requiring a moral component.

I was defining censorship as an external control on the content of expression for any reason, moral or
otherwise.

If you define censorship as a moral-based reaction, then sure, censorship is a response to moral panics only.

It's a control on the content of art, yes? Example: all the strobing, hypno-fetish f/x in the Incredibles 2 movie. That movie had a warning plastered on it, as I recall?

And Dennō Senshi Porygon was only ever aired once. I think the two examples I described here were voluntary, however.

Oh! What about seizure-inducing strobe effects? I think the warnings about them placed in television, movies, and in video games are voluntary, though.

Example: Poochi.

I believe one can make evidence-based public health decisions, but tying regulation of art to public health is the dream of every oppressive, totalitarian regime.

I think my mistake was imagining some ideal regulatory body from planet Vulcan that only makes evidence-based decisions, which is as removed from reality as Marge was in that episode.

Sounds like you are dismissing him as a threat. If so, I think you are making a grave mistake.

Not yet 😞

I think Netanyahu is suggesting his parents are deliberately starving the sick child and not their healthy one. Netanyahu's spewing Goebbels-level racist propaganda.

I was operating under the assumption that an ideal regulatory body would not act on moral panics. But such an ideal, like a chemtrail, does not (and likely cannot) exist. So it was a faulty assumption.

Thank you for the citation! 🥰

IIRC, no connection between childhood violence and violent media has ever been established by reproducible, evidence based studies.

And moral panics, I believe, are by definition vibes based and should never outweigh freedom of expression.

"Based on Presidential Election of 2024"

All his arguments still boil down to "because I'm President," it seems.

And I've been wrong many times before, too!

Except she has no evidence to support her claim about Itchy & Scratchy beyond one anecdote in the first place.

What about an actual merch commercial? Advertisement speech, IIRC, still officially enjoys intermediate scrutiny.

And one incident of Maggie with a steak knife is merely anecdotal evidence (in the world of the show.)