News
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, 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.
view the rest of the comments
The actual situation is a lot more nuanced than the headline makes it out to be. The main issue at hand here is the Catholic seal of confession, which has an extremely long history in US law (and in the law in many other countries) as being protected under freedom of religion. Essentially, Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest and be given instructions on how those sins can be forgiven. This practice is extremely old, and crucially, the priest isn't allowed to tell anyone what they were told in confession unless the confessor wants them to. This is for obvious reasons- nobody would confess anything to the priest otherwise. They take this very seriously- Catholic priests essentially believe that breaking the seal of confession is a one way ticket straight to Hell for themselves (actual situation is more complex but that's the short version) and most won't do it even if the law says they have to.
Anyway, the law in question essentially requires priests to break the seal of confession in child sex abuse cases. That seems rational given how many other people are mandated reporters, but because of the long history in US law of respecting the seal of confession and how central this practice is to Catholic doctrine, it's understandable that there is a legal fight about it and why a judge put a pause on it. Regardless of what you may personally believe on this matter, US law depends on precedent and I find it unlikely that even a normal supreme Court that isn't controlled entirely by far right activist judges would let this one stand, if this even made it to the supreme court. The precedent is just very much against it.
No special protections for child-rape book clubs. Hope that covers the nuances unlike the judge in the headline who is covering for nonces.
We had a long history in law for the ownership of humans, and how humans can be treated by their owners...
Doesn't make it right, or even constitutional.
If my "strongly held religious beliefs" mean I must kill every fascist I see, am I protected by the first amendment? It's my exercise, and I must be able to exercise it, right?
Or, does the first amendment say the government cannot make laws that target religious folk, either for benefits or persecution?