impose criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter. it held at the ordinances were unconstitutional and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. the matter came before the powerful 9th circuit court, which has jurisdiction for the western united states and all of california. the ninth circuit has been regarded as a progressive bastion, but president trump was able to appoint ten judges to the ninth circuit. it limited what idaho could do with regard to its homeless. this time a three-judge panel similarly ruled against a city s effort to regulate its homeless population. when grants pass then sought to have the matter considered by the entire circuit, it could not get the required vote from all a act tiff members of the bench. that s when all hell broke lose. the denial of a full review drew 16 dissents and many statements. as the oregonen reported, many who dissent
which is more cruel and unusual? one of the most influential appellate courts erupted in public disagreement over one of the most difficult issues of our time, homelessness. having recently decided matters of affirmative action, student loans and adoption, on top of last year s rulings concerning abortion, guns, religion and climate change, scotus might soon have the final word here, too. at issue, ordinances in grants pass, oregon, which would impose fines on homeless people for encampment on public property. a trial court was faced with this issue, whether cities can impose criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter. it held the ordinances were unconstitutional and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. the matter came before the powerful ninth circuit court, which has jurisdiction for much of the western united states and all of california. the ninth circuit
consensus around their policies, when there wasn t. i read an essay that said this opinion is a huge blow to vital efforts to harden u.s. democracy against the threats of misinformation. you would say what to them? i mean, the best way to combat misinformation is by real, true speech. if the government thinks there s some idea floating around that s dangerous, combat that with speech that says and evidence that says the idea is dangerous and here s the truth. if the government is trustworthy, people will believe them. it s not possible for anyone to claim they are on mission and always wright. it s very dangerous to say that. they should engage in discussion like other normal human beings rather than using its power to suppress the conversation from happening. essentially, to issue a negative social credit score who disagree
declaration page with no reason. there s another article that documents this. the tech companies, i don t know exactly the government role in this, but i can say the tech companies definitely de-boosted the signal around the declaration. but shortly after we wrote it, we had an e-mail from the head of the nih telling tony fauci there should be a devastating takedown of the premises of the declaration calling me a fringe epidemiologist. the government played a big role in this censorship effort to create this illusion there was a consensus around their policies, when there wasn t. i read an essay that said this opinion is a huge blow to vital government efforts to harden u.s. democracy against the threats of misinformation. you would say what to them? i mean, the best way to combat misinformation is by real, true speech.