“This clause is so vaguely defined that attorneys general can absolutely claim that queer content violates it — and they don’t even need to win these lawsuits in order to prevail. They might not even need to file a lawsuit, in fact. The mere threat of an expensive, grueling legal battle will be enough to make almost every Internet platform begin to scrub anything related to queer people.”
Technically yes but judges get annoyed if there’s absolutely no case, so they rarely do – and if they threaten when there’s no case, larger companies will look at it and say the threat’s not real.
thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 months ago
The law’s defintion of harm is extremely broad. Charlie Jane Anders has a good discussion of this in The Internet Is About to Get a Lot Worse:
Aatube@kbin.social 7 months ago
Hmm, I was the impression that Attorneys General could already sue whomever they want, success rates aside. Is that not the case?
thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 months ago
Technically yes but judges get annoyed if there’s absolutely no case, so they rarely do – and if they threaten when there’s no case, larger companies will look at it and say the threat’s not real.
Aatube@kbin.social 7 months ago
Wouldn't the same go for attempting to sue with this law on hosting LGBTQ content, which has no mention?