airbreather

@airbreather@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why DO credit card companies make a stink about adult content anyway?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  FOSTA-SESTA is at the heart of it, as I understand. I don’t want to elaborate much more because I don’t know nearly enough about the situation, but adding this search term helped make it make a little bit of sense to me.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I hate that that happens⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”. “Had had” had had a greater effect on the teacher.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Explain why the US bail system is not insane⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The 8th amendment has a clause that disallows “excessive bail”. In Stack v. Boyle, the Supreme Court found this to mean “that a defendant’s bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s presence at the trial.” So it follows that IN THEORY, bail is SUPPOSED to be set at an amount that is consistent with the defendant’s financial resources (including, it would also follow, increasing the amount for more wealthy people to ensure that it has the same proportionate effect on the defendant’s decision-making process).

  Of course, that rule is just a bunch of meaningless words if nobody enforces it… and guess what, the main way to enforce this is by bringing a suit against the government alleging that they violated the rule. So IN PRACTICE (speculation warning here, I’m just some guy), I would imagine that they just set bail schedules at a level where anyone who can afford to pay won’t be able to wik an “excessive bail” lawsuit, and anyone who can’t afford to pay it will also probably not be able to afford the cost of that lawsuit.

  And something tells me that we aren’t likely to see a wealthy person suing the government for not setting bail high enough for them.