News

35749 readers

4183 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

1178

Proposed bill would ban ICE agents, law enforcement from wearing masks in California (www.latimes.com)

submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In response to immigration raids by masked federal officers in Los Angeles and across the nation, two California lawmakers on Monday proposed a new state law to ban members of law enforcement from concealing their faces while on the job.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor for local, state and federal law enforcement officers to cover their faces with some exceptions, and also encourage them to wear a form of identification on their uniform.

“We’re really at risk of having, effectively, secret police in this country,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), co-author of the bill.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago (3 children)

If this law is enacted, the Supreme Court will say that states can't frustrate the operations of federal agents with these sorts of laws. Chief Justice Roberts will write the opinion and compare it to giving states the power to ban bulletproof vests from being worn by federal law enforcement and call it "a step from anarchy". Clarence Thomas will then write a concurring opinion saying that federal agents acting on orders from the president should actually be immune for any type of civil or criminal liability for any of their actions, lawful or not.

Then, when a Democratic president takes office the court will walk it back and say "well, actually, there's this exception, and this exception, and that exception..."

[–] parody@lemmings.world 9 points 8 months ago

Stop hogging the time machine, give someone else a chance to document inevitable future

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 7 points 8 months ago

Then, when a Democratic president takes office the court will walk it back and say “well, actually, there’s this exception, and this exception, and that exception…”

Or they won't, because the Dem president will simply "not abuse such powers" due to their "adherence to decorum".

The SC made the president god-king while Biden was in office.