This is wildly outside of the mainstream interpretation of the first amendment. Whether the law would be upheld by the court is basically a toss up.

During the investigation of child sexual abuse, if the perpetrator is a Catholic, they’ll ask if the abuser confessed. If so, the priest is liable to be prosecuted.

Honestly, my biggest problem with the law is how unlikely it is to ever be prosecuted. Proving that an abuser confessed would be impossible. They are infringing on the First Amendment and ensuring that no abuser ever talks to their priest, but in practice priests probably won’t follow the law and if they don’t the state is unlikely to actually enforce the law.

If things worked the way they should you don’t just confess your sin and go about your day. The priest assigns a penance. We are at the edge of my knowledge, and I would love for a Catholic to chime in, but I know penance can be harsh, especially for a grave sin. I’m not sure how it works in practice.

The idea is certainly not to just allow it to continue. Here we get to obvious failings of the Catholic Church. But, honestly, it’s not like the government is that great about protecting children from powerful men either.

Note for the internet: I am just clarifying the Catholic stance. I am not Catholic and not defending them.

Priests cannot reveal what someone tells them in confession. It’s a lot like attorney-client privilege, as your priest is supposed to be your advocate before God. Breaking the seal of confession is a big deal (to them) because, just like criminals deserve representation, sinners need to be able to confess.

Why would a rapist pretend to be a trans woman in a society that treats rapists better than trans women?

Yes, but you misspelled “capitalism”.

Good ol’ Murphy. The Hammurabi of the internet.

Maybe the person I replied to will read it this time.

No. Here’s a good (albeit infuriating) explanation of what happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/03/mother-of-autistic-boy-left-with-10000-debt-after-breaching-dwp-rules-by-192-a-week

I’m not sure how to explain the concept of walled gardens to people who grew up with four websites. In the 90s, most software was “shareware”, you could try it out for as long as you wanted, but businesses were expected to buy licenses.

MS used it’s dominant operating system to drive web browser competitors out of business. This is illegal. The whole concept of capitalism is built around competition, but MS used it’s power to stifle ’ innovation. The Clinton administration beat MS in court, then the Bush Administration dropped the case before the appeal was heard. If they hadn’t done that, instead had broken up Google, Meta, Apple, and the lot of them, the world would be a lot different now.

MS abused its monopoly in the 90s. The Clinton administration was too lenient, then the Bush admin kowtowed completely. Now, there’s largely no chance for another operating system to compete.

No, bad journalism. This is an important, overlooked, under covered story. I don’t particularly care about Thuneberg or her location, but Israel bombing humanitarian aid ships should be much more widely reported.

I’m a noob, and I thought Bazzite would be simpler, but when I had an issue (monitor going black under heavy load), I couldn’t solve the problem because of the immutable OS. I went around in circles with Google and ChatGPT, and couldn’t get it to work.

I’m not sure I understand what point you’re trying to make.

Democrats are not the left. It’s bad that they lose so often. If they weren’t so clearly beholden to their corporate donors they would win more.

Go fash, lose cash.

Complete tangent:

“PublicSquare is basically the Green Book, but for conservatives,” this TikTok user, who goes by dapper.delinquent, says in his video. “The Green Book was a book passed around Black communities that was a list of stores and businesses that were safe for Black People to use. PublicSquare is the same thing for conservatives.”

If you make an analogy, then have to explain the thing you are comparing the first thing with, what is the point of the analogy?

Oh, so that was why my Dad would yell “I’m gonna canola you in the mouth” every night.

If the shoe fits, wear it. It’s weird that you think my comment “focused” on white people, and also weird that you’re trying to blame all Americans when Republicans are 90% white and the only group that the majority of which ever voted for Republicans.

Republicans are a white problem. There is no other way to put it. Sorry I’m not sorry if you’re unused to being talked about collectively., but not doing so is burying the lede. Every time you said “people”, it would be more accurate if you said “white people”, but you don’t even understand why you don’t do that.

No, the majority of white people and the majority of people who voted voted for Trump. That is a big difference. As much as some liberals want to say “Not voting is the same as voting for Trump”, that is not true.

I don’t know much about UK politics, but Murdoch was pushing you right even before us.

I think about tabloids as “Propaganda that pays for itself”. What better way to sow distrust in science than wild stories about nonsense? Repeat a lie enough times and people start to believe it.

Tabloids have comparatively high sales because they’re pap aimed at the lowest common denominator. Young people don’t read print papers, so the tabloids make a business of confirming the worst Boomer fears.

When both parties are right, and most voters stay home, isn’t that the same thing?

You keep talking about “voting left” as if voters are given that option. Harris could have run on corralling big business. Does anyone think that “Almost as hard on immigrants as Republicans” was a better platform than running against billionaires?