Does the VPN industry push for this shit?

Independent of free speech issues, it forces us to confront the contents of the video. Jordan now appears to be balls deep in the conflict because of that video.
I'm not saying it's the duty of every person to confront evil in the world, petty or explicit, but a lot of us can handle it and wouldn't opt out. Just create a non-porn 18+ filter that 18+ can opt in for. Apply the filter after a couple thousand video reports.

Little confused why he told that anecdote while unvieling regulations that won't unbundle last mile. Is that a threat of some kind?

The EFF seems to think that compelling speech is harder than limiting speech. Without positive action by service provider, the canary dies. I'd trust the EFF on this, but some service providers have lawyers that have reached an opposite conclusion.

Correct, I'm not assert that 'legality' alters the fabric of reality so as to compel only action that comports with what is legal. But doing something illegal is not subject to 'leeway', you're breaking the law. Unless you're arguing that 'leeway' simply encompasses any action that could be undertaken by a being with free will, which I guess I can get on board with.

Had it passed, it could have been declared illegal by the court. That was a confrontation that did not actually occur. The FDR packing plan only supports an assertion that it has been tried unsuccessfully in the past.

Nope. You can file a court challenge if you want, but that's all the 'leeway' a US citizen gets in going against something that has been ruled on point by SCOTUS.

I'm confused. You said it isn't hard to stack SCOTUS with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description, then you link to an effort to do that which failed. SCOTUS appointment procedure as it stands is as close to allowing the democratic majority to influence the judiciary as it should probably get. People don't just 'get in'. Look at the stinkers Bush floated by Congress before arriving at Roberts.

And, again, when SCOTUS says it, it is law, and Constitutional. If you have a problem with a SCOTUS decision, then you can talk to your congress critter about changing the law or amending the Constitution. That is what you can do when SCOTUS does something that -you- disagree with, but SCOTUS cannot make an unconstitutional decision, by its very nature. Been that way since Marbury v. Madison.

Unless you're filing an actual lawsuit, instead of just unilaterally not following the law because it conflicts with your interpretation of the constitution.

Unless you're planning on armed revolution or starting your own country with its own constitution on garbage island, the only thing a different interpretation of the constitution will get you is jail time. Just ask Wesley Snipes.

You aren't responsible for interpreting the constitution. The judiciary is, and SCOTUS is the final authority on the matter. You probably don't want to go around making absolute statements about what is and is not constitutional unless you have a current SCOTUS opinion to back you up, because you start to look crazy.

Yes, society has evolved since the constitution was drafted, which in turn has led to the legislature altering the constitution or the laws which were interpreted by SCOTUS in a way that was widely disliked. Yes, SCOTUS has overruled its own decisions in the past because the people that composed it changed, or the minds of the people that composed it were changed.

But gun law and the Second Amendment is on the wrong side of things for there to be a sudden turn around. The McDonald decision was 5-4, and only one of the dissenting judges was actually concerned about the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a fundamental right. So you don't really have to worry about SCOTUS going after the Second Amendment (though it would be interesting if they examined the currently deprecated militia language), and it seems unlikely that the government's ability to place 'reasonable restraints' on gun ownership is going to change anytime soon.

It may be worth your time to actually investigate the law that has been derived from the Second Amendment, as that is more relevant to your current concerns than the actual wording of the Second Amendment at this point.

That's exactly what it means. I suppose you could question whether or not its 'right' in a moral sense, but when SCOTUS says its the law, its the law. That's their entire role within the government.

SCOTUS says the government can place reasonable restraints on gun ownership. Lots of states (and the feds) have laws prohibiting ownership of guns by people adjudicated as mentally infirm. Whether or not those people (or felons, for that matter) are buying guns at gun shows is, I think, within the sphere of legitimate government interest and probably wouldn't require an amendment to the Constitution. Mind, I'd rather have sellers running background checks on buyers, because that might actually prevent something. This bullshit proposal by the DEA doesn't sound like it would ever stop anything, because the government has constantly shown itself to be incapable of preventing anything with the harvest of big data.

I guess I was assuming the leasing problem would be resolved by reclassification, which even if it passes would still be a couple years from implementation after the inevitable court challenges. I'll admit to knowing the law better than the form implementation of that law would take (which doesn't mean that much here).

Thank you for your insight on what was an embarrassingly general question.

If the only way you can get a conviction is with access to encrypted documents, the law you're enforcing is probably unconstitutional... Or the prosecutor is REALLY bad at their job.

And remember kids, the DOJ is executive, not judiciary. They can think whatever dumb shit they want. That doesn't mean a judge is going to agree with them.

If you can legally discriminate based on smoking status and weight, you should be able to discriminate based on disease vector status as well.