Comment by zeroonetwothree
Comment by zeroonetwothree 5 days ago
Courts don’t like it when you waste their time suing over theoretical harms
Comment by zeroonetwothree 5 days ago
Courts don’t like it when you waste their time suing over theoretical harms
Exactly. Imagine how overwhelmed the courts would be with real cases if people could sue over hypothetical harms. People have many fears—some justified, some not. The main reason you can’t just sue for a theoretical harm is that everyone is focused on dealing with real issues.
It's not "theoretical" when Meta actually shut down a similar tool using legal threats. Are you seriously arguing that threat is just gone now?
Unless you’re the Supreme Court ruling on a fictitious gay website customer that is.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-we...
> About a month after the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom filed the case in Colorado federal court in 2016, lawyers for the state said it should be dismissed partly because Smith hadn’t been harmed by the state’s anti-discrimination law. Smith — who did not plan to start creating wedding websites until her case was resolved — would first have to get a request from a gay couple and refuse, triggering a possible complaint against her, the state argued.
> Smith’s lawyers maintained that she didn’t have to be punished for violating the law before challenging it. In a February 2017 filing, they revealed that though she did not need a request to pursue the case, she had, in fact, received one. An appendix to the filing included a website request form submitted by Stewart on Sept. 21, 2016, a few days after the lawsuit was filed. It also included a Feb. 1, 2017, affidavit from Smith stating that Stewart’s request had been received.