Boy someone really put “D1DDY P3N1S” in a fucking legal document.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
106 points (98.2% liked)
Not The Onion
17897 readers
1527 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That is not excessively unusual; legal documents contain all kinds of vulgar things that people say to each other (maybe before or after a crime) all the time.
My favorite from my country is (translating approximately, original is in heavy dialect): "The statement 'piss off, ya dogs, so I don't hafta see ya anymore, and I'm shittin' into your wage bags' has the objective declaratory value of an immediate termination of employment."
Under their interpretation, every company that serves children would be required to collect personal information from those children, just so they could then get parental consent. The privacy law becomes a mandatory surveillance law.
...which, of course, is exactly their goal.
Agreed. This law suite gives me the feeling that they know exactly what they are doing.
It is probably easier and faster to take this route that was the auther suggested.
If Louisiana wants platforms to implement stronger identity verification for child safety reasons, they should advocate for new legislation designed for that purpose (and see if they can make a law that actually survives Constitutional scrutiny), not twist existing privacy protections into their opposite.
It also does not prevent them from acually advocate for new legislations.
This is one of the most fucking stupid things I’ve read recently and I think we all know that’s a high bar these days.
And how exactly should they contact the parents without having the child's information first? In case the parents decline, they retroactively violate the law then?