How would that work? The options for a European nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible), the UK (unlikely to be outside of US influence) or France (only EU nuclear power). A homegrown nuclear weapon would mean pulling out of the NPT and quite possibly giving a state like the US pretext to annex Greenland in the face of Denmark seeking nucear weapons.
France has previously indicated that it's willing to make its nuclear umbrella available to other EU countries, though precisely under what terms is unclear.
Canada ? Canada could allow France and maybe the UK to put sites on their soil. That would piss of Trump, always a good thing and will give Canada some security.
Also, Denmark should now kick the US Military Sites off Greenland until the US climbs out if its psychotic break.
nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible)
Would be one of the bigger plot twists in history. I wouldn't rule it out. I think it has a decent chance of happening. Maybe 10%?
Let's say the Russia/Ukraine war is over. Russia mends its ties with Europe and says it will be good from now on. The US is ready to annex Greenland. Denmark is powerless and will lose Greenland. Russia calls Denmark and says it can help. If you're Denmark, what would you do?
What if a NATO member is suddenly hostile to you and Russia says it can help you? Russia probably does not want the US to have Greenland.
It would certainly trigger a collapse of NATO. But if the US is serious about taking Greenland, that automatically starts the collapse anyway, right?
Anyway, just all hypotheticals. Interesting to think about. I don't think chances are 0. History has shown us that countries make surprising decisions, including allying with historic enemies, when pushed against the wall.
Well eventualy one would hope the Putin Mafia dies out and the Russian Diaspora manages to turn that country back to a happier place than its current child-abducting state. There are many good russians, there is an actual society under the madness, look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_0E9IzXT34
You're giving a 10% chance to Denmark allying with Russia over a threat from US? Even right-wing parties in Dk aren't really pro-Russian, so I'd say the chance is closer to 0 than 10%.
According to lesser evil politics, if people actually believed in it, it wouldn't take that much to choose Putin over Trump. Putin getting better may not be so likely, but Trump has a lot of time to get worse.
But people don't actually believe in lesser evil politics, they believe in loyalty (to sides, not to principles). That goes for both politicians and people. Danish politicians will not switch geopolitical alliances, and they'd honestly be color-revolutioned out if they tried, without even the CIA having to lift a finger.
I don't know much about the Danes. But if in the next 2 years, anti-Trump/American propaganda fills the media, the US is very serious about taking Greenland, wouldn't they be more open to support their politicians for signing some agreement with Russia to guarantee Greenland's position?
Danes aren't stupid. They know that guarantees from Russia are not worth the paper they are printed on. Besides that they are in the EU, part of Scandinavia and whatever is left of NATO without the USA. Between all of these there are parts of a solution to be found that include neither the USA or Russia, which would be far better for Europe in the long term. Ukraine is a test case about whether or not the remainder of the free world can be salamied or not, that's the Russian side of it (and who knows, maybe the Baltics or more likely Moldavia would be next) and Greenland or Canada are the same thing from the United States' side.
No, I don't think so. Not until Trump actually invaded Greenland would Danes maybe consider Putin (or Xi Jinping) an option.
Anti-US propaganda won't fill Danish newspapers, for the aforementioned loyalty reasons. Media people in Denmark (as elsewhere in the West) identify on a personal level with the sensible establishment. Sure, it's awkward that Trump isn't part of that and is currently in charge in the US, but they are convinced things will go back to normal over there, and then it'd be really embarrassing to have failed the loyalty test to the US. "Losing your glove" and all that.
> France would still be a far more obvious partner under those circumstances
Unless the weapons are under Copenhagen’s control, they’re Potemkin protection. Paris won’t risk its economy being destroyed by sanctions, much less its military destroyed by the American war machine, to protect Danish interests in Greenland.
I mean, this is literally the story of Ukraine in 2014. Putin gave them a better deal than the West. The US organized protests and toppled the government.
Why wouldn't the US do the same in Denmark or any other Western country?
And people in Ukraine loved this and the only reason they protested their energy being tied to a country that was going to invade them and start a war in a few weeks was because of the US ?
>> Trump, with his lying and outright vote buying (No Taxes on Tips) is the kind of right wing candidate that can win enough immigrants to be nationally viable.
But the media wasn't interested in reporting on what Harris's positions were, only on whatever Trump said that week. The same as the media wasn't interested in reporting on all the many accomplishments of the Biden administration, despite the headwinds they had to push against.
So most people thought that "no taxes on tips" was a Trump position that differentiated him from Harris.
I don’t think that it was the coverage (or lack of it) that had people associate that policy more with Trump than Harris. I think it is far more likely that Trump announcing it in June and talking about it for two months before Harris announced she also supported the policy in August was what made it seem more a Trump policy than a shared policy. The Democrats were slow to react and so - even if they decided to get on board a couple of months before the election - they were always going to be depicted as playing catchup.
The democratic party has been operating on that principle for a lot longer, because low information immigrants are also a key part of their coalition (and have been since the irish and italian immigration of the 20th century).
The article doesn't say where in the EU these cars are being sold (or will be sold). I've seen the odd one in and around the French city where I live and while my first reaction is "that's a big car" my second reflection is usually around parking and driving that car in the village I live in (too big to be comfortable on the narrow roads, too large to maneuver easily in the city).
The Secret Service did it to ensure the security of the second family. Via NYT:
"Anthony Guglielmi, a Secret Service spokesman, said that for security reasons, the agency asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to temporarily increase water flow from Caesar Creek Lake, which is connected to the river.
The boats used by the Secret Service for security or an emergency evacuation are usually motorized and need deeper waters to operate, he said. Smaller boats like the ones the Vances were using, such as kayaks and canoes, can operate in shallower waters.
Mr. Guglielmi also said that the Service and local public safety officials conducted a scouting mission ahead of the excursion. During that time, one of the local public safety boats ran aground, an indication that the water level was too low for that vessel.” [0]
"for security reasons" is a wonderful excuse that can be used for everything, and mostly just shuts down any criticisms. It's up there with 'for the children'.
It is strange that showing ID to vote is controversial in the US and that providing basic ID to citizens for free to allow them to vote is a problem that seems difficult to solve (or want to solve).
My anecdote: I am an EU citizen living in another EU country. As such, I am permitted to vote in local and European elections. When I moved to my current village I registered with the local town hall online. I sent a scan of my national ID card (for my home country) and they registered me to vote for the elections I’m eligible to vote for. Ahead of the elections, they post me a physical election card telling me where to vote (always the same place in the village), and on the day I take my card and ID and vote.
It’s basically frictionless. It’s no problem to register online with a foreign ID document, and it’s no problem to present a foreign ID card alongside my election card on the day when I vote.
If I turned up to vote without my election card or my ID, I would be refused the chance to vote. That makes sense to me and showing ID to vote is not questioned by anyone.
Showing ID to vote wouldn't be controversial in the US if states made it easy to obtain a valid ID for the purpose. But states routinely use it as a backdoor mechanism to prevent people from voting.
There's an excellent documentary by Channel 5 (formerly All Gas No Brakes) where he tries to work with a group of homeless people in Las Vegas to get them papers and the process is extremely difficult. Like bordering on impossible.
>where he tries to work with a group of homeless people in Las Vegas to get them papers and the process is extremely difficult. Like bordering on impossible.
That seems like the worst case scenario though? I don't think homeless people should be disenfranchised, but at the same time it's unfair to pretend the typical experience of getting a voter id resembles whatever the TV show is depicting either.
"But these marginalized group of people isn't something we need to worry about right?"
But even setting aside homeless, US states have a very documented, very public history of disenfranchising African American voters.
* 1890-1960 you've got "literacy tests" that would routinely fail black voters but allow white voters through
* 1800-1960 you've got poll taxes which was used strategically in places to harm black & sometimes even poor white voters, mostly to suppress black voters. This by the way is where a lot of the sensitivity comes up around driver's licenses and ID cards - it's frequently referred to as a modern day poll tax.
* "Grandfather" clauses where if you grandfather could vote before the Civil War then you could bypass literacy tests & poll taxes.
Let's fast forward lest you think this is an "old" problem.
* In the 1960s you've got racial gerrymandering which starts to become popular as previous mechanisms are disallowed (this by the way still happens today & the GOP will frequently try to whitewash it as a political move and it just so happens that the Democratic party is predominantly black & the current SCOTUS has allowed that kind of fig leaf).
* Voter roll purges frequently seem to target black communities.
* Felon disenfranchisement laws seem "equal access" until you realize that African Americans are jailed in a 2:1 ratio to white people.
* North Carolina in 2013 cut early voting and same-day registration specifically targeting Black voters (as ruled on by the 4th circuit). Alabama in 2015 closed DMVs and polling places making it hard to get an ID AND to vote (closures centered in majority-Black counties). Wisconsin in 2016 had DMV clerks caught on tape intentionally giving incorrect information to deter voters from getting ID. Georgia in 2018 closed a huge amount of polling places centered in black majority districts. Texas as well (these counties had been protected by the VRA).
Sure, the most impacted tend to be poor people, but regardless of income, it's almost always got a racial bent by most of these power centers. Pretending like racism is a solved problem in America is being willfully blind.
> but at the same time it's unfair to pretend the typical experience of getting a voter id resembles whatever the TV show is depicting either.
"Typical" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is it typical in your socioeconomic class? No probably not. Is it typical in terms of many millions of people experience this problem every election cycle? Yes.
> when I specifically acknowledged that homeless not being able to get id is a real issue.
In one breadth you acknowledge it and then say "but is it really that big a deal?" in the next. That's minimization.
>"Typical" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is it typical in your socioeconomic class? No probably not. Is it typical in terms of many millions of people experience this problem every election cycle? Yes.
Do you honestly think the median person who can't vote because of voter ID laws is experiencing the same level of difficulty as a homeless person trying to get an ID? If not, then maybe you shouldn't accuse other people of ""Typical" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here".
You're somehow creating this weird dichotomy where if someone is struggling more then another person can't be experiencing difficulty either. It's possible for both problems to exist and you're playing some weird competition of "well if someone has it worse then your issue isn't as bad". No, both problems are bad and trying to stack rank between them is weird - is disenfranchising black people because of racism worse than disenfranchising the homeless? It's still disenfranchisement at the end of the day.
Pretending like voter ID laws are about the median voter is being willfully blind. If it was, they'd be pared with "free ID" legislation and making sure there's polling places commensurate with the size of population centers. But it's not - it's always purely about disenfranchising people. I'm all for voter ID laws if and only if they're pared with making voting easier. As standalone measures intended to harm specific groups I'm not in favor of them.
It can be incredibly difficult and time consuming to get a birth certificate if you have lost yours. If you work full time, you'd have to take off for an unknown time period (typically multiple hours) to stand in line at a court or other facility that provides them. In some cases, people just don't have the option to take that time off and/or lack vehicle access to get there. Then there's a fee to get a copy, lots of forms you and your relatives have to sign & get notarized. Finally, if you're successful, then you get the opportunity to make an appointment to wait at line at a DMV location. In Texas, they have severely limited hours since COVID.
I think it's become significantly worse since COVID & REAL ID requirements, but it's always been a Kafkaesque nightmare to try & get the proof of who you legally are. And, not to mention, it's a paper form that you can't just pull up digitally, so if you don't take precautions, it's easy to misplace.
Oh man the birth certificate thing is ridiculous. I had to get a new Id from scratch recently and it was the most painful process
The state I was born in decided to outsource the handling of birth certificates to some shit tier consulting firm.
In order to get my birth certificate shipped to me, I would have to wait over six months simply to process my request (ostensibly due to Covid, but this was 2023). It would have been quicker for me to walk hundreds of miles and get it in person. Thankfully I lucked out and found an old one.
Just a reminder that this is the shit politicians mean when they talk about privatizing government services.
For non-US contrast, when I needed a birth certificate recently, I filled an online form and the next day I received a digitally signed pdf by email. It was free.
Not just a slow turn-around time, but as I recall, it also cost me $90 to get my copy. That's not much for most of us, but to someone living paycheck to paycheck, it may be insurmountable or nearly so.
Having each section of our government and it's services privatized it's a whole other issue as well. We're watching the same thing that happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union (and all the Warsaw pact states) happen here in the U.S. right now: the organs of the state being shut down & sold to the highest bidder to create a loyal oligarch class.
Slowly but sure, the USPS, the NWS, and public broadcasting is being destroyed so private entities can scoop up the leftovers or take over in their stead.
To add to this, there’s friction from the citizen side of things with a relatively high level of distrust in government that’s been present for decades. If you go out deep enough into the boonies for instance you can probably find people who still don’t have government ID of any type despite being native born and prefer to keep it that way.
In my state I bring two forms of ID and a couple of bills to the DMV and I’m issued a same-day license?
How does that compare to a notoriously unfriendly nation like Germany?
In any case, my understanding is virtually any nation in Central and South America requires identification to vote. If the third-world poverty stricken nations make it work there is no reason the rich United States cannot.
You can't use your driving license under the proposed SAVE act, as it's not proof of citizenship. Only a few states offer "extended" driving licenses, which do, but also need to be requested separately in most (or all?) states that offer them IIRC. For every other state: you will have to use a passport, birth certificate, or a separate state ID card.
> Only a few states offer "extended" driving licenses, which do [prove your citizenship]
If anyone is wondering, an enhanced drivers license is not the same as a "REAL ID". A "REAL ID" does not indicate citizenship status, which the SAVE act requires.
OK now we just need to find out how well it works for thousands of other people from different states, social classes, and skin colors and then we'll have some real data.
assuming that you're talking about a driver's license, you're leaving out the important steps of passing driving tests and, more importantly, having a car.
In GA, to pick on the state I was living in when they started instituting these rules, they cut DMV locations at the same time as they started adding the ID requirements (or trying to, I moved and don't know the current status of their rules). Yes, the state ID was free, but their actions at the same time, intended or not, made it harder for people to get the free ID.
Which, to reinforce the point, is the actual situation here in America.
All the support systems that help ID cards be fairly distributed to citizens are under-documented for the populace and under-supported by the administration.
It's ripe for the authoritarian takeover that is currently underway here.
The kind of actual voter fraud that ID requirements would prevent is extremely rare. There are better ways to rig elections than hiring thousands of people to physically show up at different polling centers and vote several times under different names. Even disregarding the fact that voter ID laws are (and historically have been) widely abused to disenfranchise specific groups in the USA, what do you actually gain by requiring ID?
Preventing non-citizens from voting. Some counties in the US have almost half of the population who are non-citizens. It's great that we have so many people wanting to come to the states, but they can't vote until they become citizens. This is not a controversial issue anywhere except in the US.
> There is no evidence that unauthorized immigrants, green-card holders, or immigrants on temporary visas are voting in significant numbers, despite some claims that “millions” of noncitizens are voting in U.S. elections. In fact, audits by election officials and numerous studies reflect that voter fraud by noncitizens is extremely rare.
It’s great that those organizations say it’s uncommon. But this shouldn’t even be an issue. It doesn’t take many votes to tip a close election. Requiring ID like every other country is the common sense thing to do. And it helps build confidence in the election process without the need for organizations to try and demonstrate that the election was legitimate after the fact.
As an analogy, let's say I'm triaging a broken neck, a burn, a gunshot wound, a compound fracture, a stab wound, a broken toe, and a hangnail.
If Voter ID were to be placed somewhere on here, it would be below hangnail.
This is smoke and mirrors nonsense that is using minorities and trans people as a scapegoat and distraction.
How much fucking richer are people getting? Poor people have been convinced by rich people that their problems are the other poor people. It's insane. You can pull this pattern out of every modern fascist government and yet people are lacking on to it like a bunch of suckers. It's embarrassing. We should be fucking ashamed of ourselves.
That's a specious argument because the voter ID problem requires basically zero resources. Just mandate voter ID, problem solved. Practically every other first-world country does, including progressive European countries.
Back to the triage analogy, there is a person with a compound fracture that is losing blood. The gsw needs care. We need pressure on that artery.
We're arguing over the color of the bandaid for the hangnail.
That's why I don't give a fuck about voter ID, because the people that give a fuck about voter ID have been fucking duped, and I don't know how to reason with that human, so I just have given up trying and scream into the void.
If somebody will streamline the process and actually fund some DMVs to get this done I'd be all for it - but they won't, because it's not the point, they'll just mandate it as a form of voter suppression without doing anything to fix the infrastructure problem.
Common sense isn't saying "oh there's no ID required at the polls? Illegals must be tipping elections", it's recognizing that there are armies of people auditing these elections each cycle. Irregularities are caught and people challenge results in court all the time. In practice, if you tried to commit voter fraud, I think you'd find it very hard to accomplish (especially if you're trying to change the outcome)
Even in your ideal scenario where ID is a hard requirement and nothing should slip through the cracks, you could still introduce doubt somewhere in the chain (e.g. did the poll worker actually check your ID?)
If ID is required, then your whole “Illegals must be tipping elections" argument just goes away. People keep making this debate in the US of “we need ID to prevent election fraud” vs “we can’t have ID required because ID can be hard to obtain”. It’s just silly. If you take a step back and make it easier to get an ID than the whole things resolves itself. The pro-ID people are happy Because only registered voters can vote and the non-ID people are happy because voting is accessible. The real question is, why are they not doing that? Every other country can do it, why not the US? Why do we have to be stuck in this silly debate forever?
And I don’t believe the whole “the mean republicans won’t let us!” narrative. Democrats controlled the executive branch 12 of the last 16 years and control half the states. If they care about voters rights, why haven’t we tried to fix this?
I'm not sure if you've ever voted, but States without ID requirements (about 15 of them total) don't just let you walk in and cast a ballot anonymously. If you were trying to commit fraud, you'd need to know a combination of things about the person you're pretending to be and sign the poll book or an affidavit[0]. Now try scaling that process up enough to change the outcome... you can't.
Your assumptions about lack of ID = easy fraud is misguided.
> Every other country can do it, why not the US?
Elections are handled by the States themselves and so trying to tackle this on a federal level through the executive or Congress probably wouldn't go over very well considering it'd go against the constitution[1] (although that doesn't seem to be that big of a problem these days)
You basically just disregarded the comment you replied to and doubled down on your original idea.
You are saying that the problem would be a non-problem if only we had voter ID was. However the evidence before you (and that includes evidence collected by conservative organizations that generally align with politically motivated voter suppression) is that the problem is effectively already a non-problem, due in part to the many other controls in place around voter registration and vote counting. Meanwhile there is quite a bit of evidence showing that your favorite solution to the non-problem is itself problematic, measurably so in the historical record.
You are of course welcome to continue believing whatever you want to believe. But it's hopefully obvious by now to anyone reading this thread that your beliefs are not aligned with facts.
It's like arguing that Python is bad because it has dynamic types, and if we all just adopted static types in Python then all type errors in Python would go away. Even if that is true, it's a ridiculous position to hold.
If you want voter ID to be a thing, then you need to first establish a nationwide ID system that is equitable in terms of access. Until that exists, voter ID is a bad idea in the USA.
I think I have been convinced by this thread that risks of no-ID voting is fairly low. Certainly not nearly as big of an issue as I thought when I first posted.
I still maintain that this should be a non-issue. ID’s are issued by the state, and they are the entities responsible for voting and voter registration. You don’t need a national database to fix this.
The lawmakers that demand ID for voting also work to reduce access to ID. The most obvious way is just closing facilities that issue IDs, but also through fees and documentation requirements.
American exceptionalism is a real thing, unfortunately. And what I've found is that when confronted with a flaw or aspect of their society that could be improved, Americans tend to work backwards from the problem and try to explain away the problem, while inventing ridiculous hypotheticals for why other countries implementations won't work.
See: this thread and voter ID, any kind of firearm laws, gerrymandering, lack of public transport, etc.
Apart from the fact that you are basically disregarding all of the detail explanations on why the US is in fact different when it comes to voter ID, all of the things you mentioned are primarily decided by states, with relatively federal authority beyond the ability to withhold funding conditional on states adopting certain policies, which is a very crude instrument that is only used in a handful of circumstances like establishing a nationwide minimum drinking age. And what you will find is that there is a tremendous amount of heterogeneity across states in all of those categories.
I don't disagree. My comment has little to do with that.
Let's take the fact that sales tax isn't baked into the price in the US, a common criticism of the US. I understand the sales tax is different per state. Not having the sales tax baked in is an annoyance, and I believe almost everybody would agree having it baked in would be an improvement.
I don't understand why Americans work backwards to try and explain it away. I've genuinely seen comments such as:
"What if the sales tax changes often? Then they have to reprint all the labels" (does this actually happen that often?)
"They have to print different labels for each state" (Many stores already print different labels for regional pricing, or use e-ink)
"It's not that hard to just compute +X%, just get better at math" (It's not hard but what's wrong with transparency and clarity with the price?)
It's that kind of discussion that my comment is referring to.
> It is strange that showing ID to vote is controversial in the US and that providing basic ID to citizens for free to allow them to vote is a problem that seems difficult to solve (or want to solve).
One of the blockers to a national ID system in the US, that would result in voter ID no longer posing any substantive obstacle to voting, has been anti-government paranoia; but another, if you're not aware, has been fundamentalist Christianity and its eschatology -- fundamentalist Christians may associate the idea of a national ID with the "mark of the beast".
The amusing thing here of course is that while Trump's attempt to unilaterally impose ID rules is illegal, if it were successful, it would likely be an own goal. Formerly, the sort of person who is likely to not have any sort of ID -- someone disconnected from any systems that would require it -- was more likely to vote Democratic than Republican, but in recent years, this has reversed. While I can't cheer for breaking election laws (or for a court ruling that this is in fact legal, because it shouldn't be considered so), it would at least be amusing if this backfired.
> associate the idea of a national ID with the "mark of the beast"
This was absolutely true during the 2000s.
The huge irony is that having a national ID (central authenticator issuing globally unique identifiers) is the only way to protect PII, at the field level, at rest.
Per the Translucent Database strategy. Which I won't repeat here. Unless the peanut gallery develops a genuine interest.
In other words, not having Real ID (or equiv) enables our panoptic surveillance capitalistic dystopia.
There was plenty of it in the lead-up to 2000, too. I had a family member who in the late 90s got swept up in some of the religious internet mania surrounding the mark that was tying it to the Y2K bug and all sorts of other things. It remains some of the most bonkers stuff I’ve ever seen, even in the modern era of heightened internet craziness.
I know it is not the same as ‘prove who you are to surf’ but when I open the page and am greeted with a note that explains that, in exchange for reading the article, The New Yorker will share my personal information with 219 different partners, you sort of wonder where the anonymity they are so worried about has gone.
>> "We, and our 219 partners use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences. We may also use these technologies to gauge the effectiveness of advertising campaigns, target advertisements, and analyze website traffic. Some of these technologies are essential for ensuring the proper functioning of the service or website and cannot be disabled, while others are optional but serve to enhance the user experience in various ways. We, in collaboration with our partners, store and/or access information on a user's device, including but not limited to IP addresses, unique identifiers, and browsing data stored in cookies, in order to process personal data."
The writers and editors understand that privacy is central to their lifestyle and work - few sources will allow exclusively on-the-record interviews.
The accountants that pay the writers and editors believe that, to make the math work of "Cheap enough that a viable number of subscribers will pay", the subscription must be ad-subsidized.
These are two seperate groups, and lumping them in to call them both hypocritical is lazy in thought, or ignorant in recognizing that the New Yorker is more than one person. Yes, change should start at the paper running the story. The fact they haven't yet convinced all their subscribers or accountants, and ~~possibly not even~~ presumably the public at large, does not detract from their point.
According to this article, she self-reported to the DOJ ("Feinstein says that she took it upon herself to inform the DOJ of her relationship with Aaron after the backlash first kicked off more than three weeks ago.”). The people from the DOJ who contacted her initially were looking into ethical issues ("Within a week, she said that she was then contacted by the Office of the U.S. Trustee, which said it was reaching out on behalf of an ethics committee.”).
She told the investigators that she didn’t have anything much to do with the app ("They asked me about my relationship to the ICEBlock App,” she said. “And I informed them in so many words that I really didn’t have any relationship or involvement in the app, I was married to the creator.”) However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company.
The Newsweek article on HN seems to have a lot less info than this one, though both have pretty inflammatory headlines.
> However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company.
That’s a lot more than a footnote. If the app development company owned the app and she had ownership in the app development company, there’s no way to argue she didn’t have an interest in the app.
Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer and continue to keep their job. You have to be divested from one or the other. Due to the marriage, there likely any way to divest from the app unless her husband also divested from it. Even then, the damage was done.
> Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer
Really? So if my wife works for Google and I work for Facebook, she has to get me to quit Facebook? Or if my wife works for Google and I found a start up making a search app, then she has to get me to wind up my start up?
Some employees may have contracts that have ethical clauses for outside activity.
The person in this case worked for the US Government, and is subject to ethics laws and agency policy.
In most cases, a mutual fund isn’t an ethical issue for most roles - although in a more normal time some elected officials would put investments in blind trusts to ensure there wasn’t an appearance of corruption.
Owning a portion of a private company run by your spouse whose principal activity is directly opposed to those to whom you serve at the pleasure of is going to be a problem. If you fail to report it, you’re going to get fired.
> she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company
Let's suppose this means she is directly linked to this anti-ICE app, profits from it (if it even has any revenue?) and is interested in the apps success. Does it mean that she has ethical conflict with her DOJ position?
There are strict limitations on 'hate speech’, denial of the Holocaust is illegal, and there are laws still on the books (and some examples of media outlets being prosecuted for breaking those laws) around presenting drug use as a positive thing, or encouraging drug use.
You can be prosecuted as an "apologist for terrorism” should the government conclude that this is what you are doing. You can also be charged with “contempt of public officials” as people were for burning an effigy of President Macron.
In the US, as far as I know as someone who has only ever visited the country for a short time, you are allowed to hold the President in contempt, you can announce to anyone who’ll listen your ignorant, racist, Holocaust-denying opinions and not be afraid of that speech being criminalized (though there are social costs you’ll probably pay), and if you want to go on the internet and encourage people to try drugs, you can. You can support whatever side of whatever conflict around the world you like with your words and you probably won’t be breaking the law.
France’s laws around freedom of expression are strong, but they are different to those in the US and I would say offer fewer protections for citizens than the US 1st amendnment.
In the US and most countries though, there's libel / defamation laws; you can say a lot of shit about people, but they can then sue you for libel / defamation if you spout nonsense.
Those same laws exist here in France, too, even if they are a little more complex. The truth of a statement, for example, is not a sufficient defence if that truth is not something that is public. Making someones private life public, even if your comment is true, can be against the law.
Defamation might be illegal in both the US and France, but I can burn an American flag and show contempt for the US President without commiting a crime the US. Do the same in the France and you don’t have the same protections for your speech.
There's no need to use the Uncle Tom epithet to criticize the behavior you don't like in a Supreme Court judge.