• Aatube@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wouldn’t the law only make clear they’ll win if it fits the law’s definition of harm?

    • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 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:

      “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.”

      • Aatube@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Hmm, I was under the impression that Attorneys General could already sue whomever they want, success rates aside. Is that not the case?

        • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Wouldn’t the same go for attempting to sue with this law on hosting LGBTQ content, which has no mention?