If multiple people told her they were hospitalized then you could ask and answer about that in a general way without violating HIPPA. "Were the multiple cases of hospitalization due to water quality issues in the recent month?" As long as individual data isn't revealed then there is no violation. Which is obvious when you think about any generalized health statistics.
Which isn't to defend the Trinidad Police department, but to point out, if their concern was community awareness, then they could have asked any news outlet to do this same reporting as a matter of public interest.
Instead the police decide that it's better to use their limited resources to take a citizen into custody over factually ambiguous statements. We live in disappointing times so it's not hard to imagine a friend or colleague pressured the police into violating this woman's civil rights in an effort to shut everyone up about the sorry state of their infrastructure.
Ok, but it’s a sure-fire way to not answer any question you don’t like or if you are unsure of the person making the request—from the receptionist to the hospital administrator. A convenient “fig leaf” if you will.
In a more charitable view—if a hospital admin did disclose something they shouldn’t the consequences are legal. E.G. the context for answering has to be legal, or someone trained to answer your specific questions. Now, try to find that person and get an answer—crickets.
it only prevents personably identifiable information to be shared with institutions that are not hippa compliant. nothing else.
Your desire that more politicians behave this way doesn't make them not corrupt.
Same for the guy in TN who got arrested for posting that anti-conservative meme. Nobody thought they would win, but they want to make everyone else think twice about criticizing a particular political side.
some of my students have expressed that they wish they could get arrested for a meme and walk away with a couple hundred grand.
i, of course, have told them that they would be playing with fire. but they are still viewing it as a potentially life-changing payday. so, for some subset of people, they might be having to opposite of the desired chilling effect.
Particularly if you're young and poor.
Humans don't really work the way you're implying from your armchair.
That’s precisely how I thought - getting involved with a “get money now” scheme was not worth the “no money ever again” it often came with. I watched friends do things like this and face consequences later.
Not to discourage anyone from protesting, but not all poor people think alike.
Were any of the people who took risks also subject to deportation upon arrest? I expect they were all USA citizens with less to lose. Genuinely interested if this is not the case, because this seems very explainable if that aspect is different between you and them.
That said if you do go into circumstances - "I did it to get arrested and get a payout" could also be viewed as a red flag - says "may screw you/the company for money". Probably not the employee / tenant / etc you might want.
nothing? maybe a laugh? it’s a meme not a murder
Convicted, sure. Merely arrested, with no conviction? Then you'd be an asshole
Convicted ... for memeing? I think that would still be absurd. I don't think landlords should be denying tenants for obviously unrelated matters.
Working minimum wage jobs is demoralizing on multiple levels. The jobs are often physically exhausting (I unloaded trucks and stocked shelves among other things). But the worst part is that the entire system treats you with disdain. You walk away with the strong feeling that nobody gives a shit. I knew that I wanted and could have better things but many of my coworkers internalized a different message.
Yup, sounds about right.
What an awful data environment
The fact that you were arrested, charged even, if not convicted should not be discoverable by third parties
Uncivilised
That's how people get disappeared in failed states.
It's perfectly fine to force the state to clearly declare whom they have detained and their reasons for doing so. We also need to recognize that arrests are very often preposterous (or worse, retaliatory) and not hold it (absent other information or further proceedings) against people.
The fact that someone is in custody should be always available. But it should not be up to Joe Random to pay $11 to my State Patrol to find out why I was arrested last week, especially if I wasn't charged.
(and even if you were able to change the nature of reality as you suggest, why accommodate the state's desire to deny such an action after-the-fact?)
Now there is no absolute guarantee that, if someone has the information, and they are legally required to delete it or not use it, that they don't break the law. But it works in the case of balancing the need to avoid people being disappeared against preventing dragnet misuse of arrest data by employers and landlords. Maybe organised crime employers would systematically break the law if maintaining a database illegal, but they also probably don't mind people with arrest records.
One of the criteria: "The person has reached 120 years of age."
Cool.
I'm not saying that I don't think twice about how to word things or that I'm some sort of free speech warrior. I'm saying that when I make concessions, I feel bad about it. Try to be brave and keep speaking openly about your contempt for the people in charge.
How many people didn't get media attention, don't have the ability (time/money) to sue, lost that case, and those where the intimidation and "punishment" was successful?
At some level the people doing this intimidation believe it'll be successful. Is that from experience?
When I was young, I might have thought this way for sure. I didn't expect to have a future anyway and this would have potentially been a cool level-up that I'd seize.
Responding to someone in another comment that happened after the parent, when I was young and had no real prospects (despite coming from a well-off but not super wealthy family), I had a lot of mental health issues and emotional issues that didn't seem possible to resolve and it wasn't realistic to think I'd finish a college degree or start a career. Imagine being a well-educated white male in the USA who expects to be trapped working retail forever while peers get white-collar jobs and you can see the appeal. Fortunately, decades of hard work and treatment can make a world of difference, but that's not anything you can bet on when you're young and desperate.
Those ones are the easiest though, are they not? Someone going into it with convictions (or even chickening out because they are aware of the consequences) have consolation and inner reserves. Some kid angry that he can't get a six figure salary at age 22 fresh out of college might regret it as soon as they're in the clink, but if that doesn't get them... the 6-10 years of lawyer-wrangling and stress certainly will. All for the payday to not even go half as far as they think... it'll pay down some bills, there won't be any sports cars.
Are you interested in buying some from me using your money on this timeline?
> They did it to show that if you speak out against them, they'll arrest and inconvenience you. So the next person who gets a thought to speak out might decide not to bother.
That needs reiterating because an uncomfortable amount of people think this sort of thing simply doesn't affect them.
They know the charges won’t stick, they are using the process of fighting the charges itself as the punishment.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-email-inventor_n_...
YC and its founders worship him like a hero.
Those who have lots of money will get fair hearings under the court, but those with less power might not. There's a reason people like Elon Musk write into agreements that they must be settled in particular Texas courts.
To add slightly more flavoring, I think its a pretty reasonable view to assume that the massive fracturing happening in the American political scene is most likely affecting the judicial branch. Perhaps you disagree. Take it as an opinion. Don't take it seriously. Whatever floats your boat.
Bonus question: do you enjoy watching Fox?
I won't say what aliasxneo does to add slightly more flavoring, but I think it's a pretty reasonable to assume it's gross and lazy.
Actually, just checking out newsworthy rulings in Texas might take care of everything. The corruption there is astounding.
Just in case you're being honest about your own ignorance on this matter, you can start here:
Texas is larger (in both population and economy) than most countries in the world.
It's one of the (many) reasons why I immediately moved out of the state when I had a chance. There's only so much that can be done when a lot of the states politics and environment is wholly self-destructive.
If Texas seceded from the US (which there is an actual movement here that gets loud with Democrat presidents) it would be the 8th or 9th largest economy in the world. The oil propping up the US while the US admin is/was grifting large paychecks for friends and family with the Iran thing -- comes from Texas. No one posting words online then getting payouts is going to bankrupt them.
I would be a bit skeptical that civil rights violations over the web would be enough to bankrupt many municipalities but I think it is the larger point of no State laws or system of accountability for any of the things an official may do.. Some officials choose liquid investments or select large civil projects, etc.
I'm very happy with the possibility of Texas leaving the union. Anyone who isn't Texan should focus on leaving Texas to its rights with acceptance of as little liability for Texas as possible. Texas can fix itself or not, not my problem.
What (federal) bailout did Texas receive for the power grid? Unless something changed, Texas refuses fed help for the power grid because it wants to stay independent. Texas bailed itself out of the 2021 power grid failure with a couple/few billion dollars that Texas pays for. And while not great, Texas refused hundreds of millions in federal money to shore up flood protections, which came to light last year. Texas is not your typical southern state that takes and does nothing for itself.
Those links are a country wide program that benefits the whole of the US, which Texas is sill a part of. Even with a very generous acceptance of your proof, 60 million is nothing compared to the 2.5 billion Texas funded themselves to shore up their independent grid. They won't take bail out type money because they refuse to accept federal oversight that comes with it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_...
Californian here, we're bigger than Texas, laughed at the plight of ordinary people who voted for the terrible outcome they got when there was a massive winter storm and no electricity in 2021. Of course, I want good things for all people and I don't want anyone to suffer (this extends to my political enemies unless you're at the top making decisions that cause harm and then I'm flexible).
I honestly could see the hilarity of that disaster while still having compassion for the people on the ground. They voted based on social disagreements rather than competency and reaped the rewards. That said, there are very few actual competent leaders in USA government regardless of professed party. It's just that Texas keeps re-electing grifters who are nakedly corrupt (Ken Paxton and Ted Abbot come to mind). The citizens of the state are so blind as to punch themselves in the face when they vote.
"Ted Cruz says leaving Texas during winter disaster was 'obviously a mistake' as he returns from Cancún"[0]
0. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/18/ted-cruz-cancun-powe...
The wiki has the official death toll at 246[0]. It's estimated to actually be over 700. I don't see the humor at all. But then again, I also don't find humor in the death and destruction of all the wildfires out your way either, do you? or do you only conflate devastating natural disaster outcomes to voting outcomes in states with results you don't like?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis#Impact
> An Enemy of the People [..] is an 1882 play [..] that [..] centers on Dr. Thomas Stockmann, who discovers a serious contamination issue in his town's new spas, endangering public health. His courageous decision to expose this truth brings severe backlash from local leaders [..]
"Because of its subject matter, which includes religion, venereal disease, incest, and euthanasia, it immediately generated strong controversy and adverse criticism."
This author wrote stuff that broke norms with taboo. That alone doesn't make the work meaningful, but the accolades mentioned in the article make me think of him as a P.T. Anderson of his time. Thanks for the reference and link!
https://scontent.fcps4-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/6654022...
https://media.reclaimthenet.org/2026/05/N35Bezr1GdxG.jpg
It's facebook post. Firefox's "copy text from image" gives this unformatted blob:
> Southern Belle Watch • 1h • 2 Author We have received reports that some citizens have been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. This is a serious public health concern that deserves immediate attention. If your water looks discolored, contains sediment, has a strong odor, or you have experienced related health issues, please send us a message. We are gathering information and reporting findings to the state. We are aware that not all areas of Trinidad are experiencing these issues. However, if your water is affected, your information could help identify patterns and ensure the problem is addressed properly. Please include: • Your area or neighborhood (no exact address needed • Photos or videos of the water (if available) • Dates and times the issue occurred • Any notices you may have received • Any health concerns you're willing to share Your information can help bring attention to the issue and support efforts to improve water quality for everyone. If you have information or your water looks like this, please send us a message Reply
> The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
It seems to me that a reasonable person would know this violates constitutional rights if you arrest people that criticize the government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-imm...
The idea that officials aren't personally liable for mistakes made in good faith isn't bad. But somehow the US tends to produce a lot of cases where good faith requires a lot of faith :)
Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive.
The issue isn't qualified immunity itself, but rather the maximalist interpretation that seems pervasive in the US justice system, and the overwhelmingly broad definition of "honest mistake" that seemingly applies to the police, and the police alone.
Qualified Immunity didn't exist as a concept until the 1960s, and it was put in place to shield policemen enacting racist policies and corrupt cronies of Nixon.
Regardless, the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.
I fail to see how this would change anything other than increasing taxpayer costs further in the form of insurance profit margin.
Now you'll do the same thing with police, as if police wages and salaries won't increase proportionally, but 20 years from now you'll wonder why that costs so much. It's bizarre how economically imperceptive everyone is.
We are already paying increased taxes to deal with all the lawsuits we already incur because these people know they are above the law and they think it isn't their problem.
The people still pay for it. They pay for all the settlements, plus they pay another big slice on top for the insurance industry (since they do nothing for free). Then cops do the same thing, and lobbyists push on the insurance industry to allow them to keep breaking heads because "you can't do this job without breaking heads once in awhile". And nothing changes, except to get worse.
I'm sure the idea seems really clever to you. I mean, you invented it. Or maybe just read a blurb about it on reddit once.
In the medical world, insurance premiums have never forced an incompetent quack out of the field. They have their licenses pulled by the board (but only after some small number of tragedies). And you can't use that model on police either, because there's a big difference between a professional/academic who must study and train over a decade to even be able to operate independently, and grunts that you need in large numbers to go insert themselves into fights, troubles, and disputes. It's very likely that if there is a sophisticated, intelligent solution to our problems with police you wouldn't even like the proposal upon hearing it. I will search the rest of this thread for things you criticize, since that might be a good signal that it's worth reading.
You, in fact, argue in support of their idea -- there's lots of people who want to be cops. That keeps salaries lower, making a ballooning insurance cost impossible for a bad cop to continue to pay.
If you told McDonald's that they had to pay a 10¢ tax on every cheeseburger, and then you turned around and told me "Hey, it's ok, McDonald's will pay the tax, you don't have to!" it'd mean that you were intellectually defective. You can see that right? That McDonald's would instantly raise the price of the burger not even 10¢ but probably 11¢ or 12¢. No one needs to be told this, of course, but I need to lay everything out perfectly clear because not everyone is a non-idiot.
If this is true of McDonald's, how do you think it's somehow not true of cops? Do you think they will just take a $20,000/year hit in their effective income? Do you think that there is some mechanism that will prevent them from forcing the prevailing salary/wages higher until the cost is born by taxpayers? If you think there is such a mechanism, please explain how you came up with that bizarre notion. If you don't think there is a particular mechanism that will do this, please tell me that you're not just assuming there must be one.
>You, in fact, argue in support of their idea -- there's lots of people who want to be cops. That keeps salaries lower
I have never implied, let alone argued, that there are people who "want to be cops". There is generally supply sufficient to meet the demand for that particular occupation. Even that might be a little strong, these are people who earn far more than most Americans would guess, and definitely more than you'd believe given that there is no dire shortage of potential recruits.
>That keeps salaries lower, making a ballooning insurance cost impossible for a bad cop to continue to pay.
All doctors pay hefty malpractice insurance premiums. It is not "bad doctors" who pay it. All pay it, bad ones too... assuming that "bad" does not sink so low that they lose their license (the bar is truly low here, people need to die or suffer really horrible outcomes in ways that they can't make excuses or find scapegoats).
All cops would (hypothetically) pay these hefty malpractice insurance premiums. Not just "bad cops". All. But they really wouldn't pay them, because their salaries just aren't as high as, say, a pediatric surgeon or an anesthesiologist. So their pay would balloon higher through well-understood and uncontroversial principles of economics. Enough that, after several years, we would expect the difference in average salaries between the two time periods to be roughly equal to the average insurance premium.
You already posit that bad cops would be forced out because they can't afford insurance. This means that the burden of the payouts for settlements plus the burden of the value extracted by the insurance industry will be born entirely by non-bad cops. These cops won't just take a $20,000/year hit to their incomes. The candidate pool will shrink, making it more difficult to hire, and municipalities will be forced to raise their offers until they are able to hire to whatever level they had already decided upon.
Bad cops will be hired too (remember, the mechanism you are proposing is that bad cops will be forced out after being bad, because insurance will drop them). So we don't see an improvement in outcomes... bad cops do what they do until they are forced out (just as now). And we won't see an improvement in taxpayers footing the bill for their abuse, instead of paying directly, there will be another layer of indirection where the cops pay for the insurance company to do it (and the insurance company adding a fee on top for all their "work"), but then turn around and tell us to pay them more so they can afford the insurance. And you won't get to say "nope, not paying more", because you only make decisions indirectly, by voting every few years.
All human beings over the age of 11 and iq 95 should be able to reason this out from first principles.
Every interaction with the police is a dice roll to see if someone lives or dies.
How many other jobs can we apply this to?
More "you say X we say Y here's your options you are Z days over with a W% rate", rather than "Ah hah! $50 dollars error, time to make an example outta this poor bastard."
Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive.
Or maybe police training should be longer than a coding bootcamp... in some countries, police work is an undergraduate major and the programs are quite competitive. Similarly, there are countries without qualified immunity as a policy, and it doesn't seem to fundamentally undermine policework there.
Qualified immunity isn’t qualified, and it’s a horrific distorting function on your society, as officers get to act with impunity.
They’re given more and more power, and less and less responsibility.
https://www.pelrb.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Public-S...
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend...
Something that should be exempt from qualified immunity are actions that go against court orders.
Good on the grand jury for not indicting this ham sandwich.
They already dished out the punishment, so they don’t care that it was dismissed.
Maybe they could dock the Chief's retirement account?
This woman shouldn't settle for anything less.
“We have received reports that some citizens have been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. This is a serious public health concern that deserves immediate attention. If your water looks discolored, contains sediment, has a strong odor, or you have experienced related health issues, please send us a message. We are gathering information and reporting findings to the state.”
that is pretty solidly "free speech", not defamation, not allegations of anything, not "libel"‡
‡libel noun 1. a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation
Example: he was found guilty of a libel on a Liverpool inspector of taxes
-defamation -defamation of character -character assassination
2. (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration
verb 1. defame (someone) by publishing a libel
Example: the jury found that he was libelled by a newspaper
---- But law can be complex and "injustices" happen all the time, so we'll see...
We just had the Broadview 6 case dismissed (with prejudice) this week. The Broadview 6 included former Chicago Congressional primary contender, Kat Abugazaleh. It was a bullshit set of charges for daring to protest an ICE facility. It was always going away but what was more disturbing is the prosecutorial misconduct [1]. The level of misconduct should rise to the level of disbarment. It will get referred to the bar and it'll probably be some slap-on-the-wrist sanctions however.
Prosecutors hold a lot of power and can make your life hell. They need to be held to a very high standard and any whiff of this kind of misconduct should forever bar you from being a prosecutor or a judge.
In this case the prosecutor basically engaged in witness tampering (effectively) with the grand jury proceedings and then tried to cover it up by redacting those parts of the grand jury transcripts. Those redactions basically amount to committing perjury, making false filings to the court under oath.
That's the lengths prosecutors will go to to crush protests. This goes equally for exposing incompetence, negligence or corruption by the town for mismanaging the water supply. This kind of overreach and misconduct is all too common.
[1]:https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/broadview-6-trial-cance...
Everything is an accident, an anecdote, only trust the state with your authoritative quantitative data! There's surely no philosophical issues with that! There's no issues with definitional authority!
How long should water pipes remain useful? Am I outrageously naive to think more than 75 years?
Perhaps they have been doing no maintenance....
This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better in the US. I’m a nonviolent cripple. Meanwhile a pardoned Jan 6 rioter just told a City Counsel “they should be strung up” and isn’t even being charged. Totally depends what team you’re on right now.
A great candidate to get some money from the lawfare fund.
Even my public defender read it line by line with me and admitted “there’s no threat here” but he’s a fat drunk dependent on them giving him work. He even told me about his “chats” with the Prosecution attorney to “negotiate” the plea deal. Totally rotten. Turned my life around since then but by no means was justice served…I keep my squeaky clean self out of the County as much as possible.
FWIW 70 inmates have died in custody in the past 5 years. Place is understaffed by 100+ officers.
Money does not grow on trees, you know!
There are isolated incidents of poor water quality in each of those countries, and especially in small towns of eight hundred people in rural areas, but generally speaking, clear drinking water that is free of bacteria is standard.
The taste of chlorinated water generally isn't tolerated.
Also: It's a bit of a culture shock to be served soft drinks made from very obviously chlorinated water in e.g. California (one of the richest regions in the world). Is it a taste that people just learn to live with? I don't understand how this is tolerated.
On the other hand, I remember being shocked as a small child visiting Disneyland by how nasty the water from the water fountains there tasted, and in general the tap water in the dryer southern part of the state isn't as good (LA also has its own famous systems for getting drinking water from parts further east).
It's a large country. Texas is a very large state, larger in size than France.
Texas recently voted to approve a $20 billion investment in water.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/04/texas-elections-2025...
I've honestly grown absolutely sick of this type of comment as I get older. If you're not from the states, it's maybe understandable, but throughout my life most of the folks with me on the left that make these statements are completely ignorant of how their own government works and just assume "shit should be taken care of" without actually having to put any work in. It drives me crazy.
The vast majority of our electorate doesn't pay attention to politics, and then votes for feel-good measures (often very expensive), and almost universally avoid actual long-term net positive investments, like urban density and avoiding bond issuances wherever they are impractical.
As you see small towns welcoming -- even courting -- data centers while everyone in the town hates and protests them... yea, it's almost certainly because the town is broke, and the only folks who realize it are the city officials.
>How does a town ... not have the resources to get clear drinking water flowing through their taps?
Many, many, many, towns in America are functionally insolvent! The amount of cost it takes to maintain our road/sewer/water/refuse/emergency/energy systems is very often more than the tax revenue that the town can bring in. This is literally the entire point of the Strong Towns organization: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020-5-14-americas-growt...
Rebuilding a water system is one of the most significant municipal finance events that a city will have to deal with, and more and more cities across the nation are requiring federal bailouts; e.g., the Jackson, Mississippi water crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_Mississippi,_water_cr....
It's just so frustrating as someone who cares about municipal finances that American cities' sustainability that most people think that it's just supposed to work itself out when cities are just lighting money on fires... often to the cheers of the electorate who voted for it.
It can all be exasperating. If you're curious about why a nerd like me can be so exasperated and scared by all this, I'd suggest a recent episode of Derek Thompson's Plain English podcast: https://youtu.be/OXKAfcgl7eU
[Given that Henderson county went for Trump by 30 points, the probably also support pro-pollution policies at both the local and state level too.]
https://observer.com/2010/07/the-collapse-of-east-hampton-ho...
It doesn't matter in the US. Just pretend.
Sounds like concepts of a plan. So, they ain't doin' shit, except arresting people who speak up.
Imo, speaking like this normalizes their behavior - it was crazy then and it's crazy now.
I prefer to work my way up the chain of command first and find the head(s) of the snake. Sure, punish the cops but don't let their corrupt chain of command play The Game otherwise we all just lost and the problem just repeats with new tools.
[1] - https://gov.texas.gov/
I get the point that there should be some limited immunity so they can do their jobs. Debatable, but worth the debate.
The argument about the repercussions of eliminating immunity is logical. It just seems like one of those things where there are multiple factors contributing to undesirable outcomes, and that makes it necessary to talk to experts.
(though realistically speaking yes there's probably some level of procedural immunity that probably makes sense, similarly with business bankruptcies not ruining the people who start the business)
This is basic engineering, you don't want runaway feedback loops, the underlying system is unstable so we need a control system.
What does this even mean?
Plus, many powerful people in government are not that rich.
It's somewhat intractable at this point unless or until we can figure out how to structure society in a way that can actually prevent it. Not sure we have the organizational knowledge at this point.
The government used to have better guards in place, but then what happened? They got weakened because of the monied interests already existed were successful at largely capturing the government. Guess what else happened during much the same time period; The government largely stopped breaking up monopolies, and many unions were busted or otherwise weakened or eliminated.
C'mon, HN users forgot how to think? Forgot to ask Claude?
How is that working out?
Its a bit like saying driving dangerously is OK because you have insurance. Until everyone drives dangerously and insurance is sky high for all.
That said, they should be sued.
No change will happen until cities stop using police revenue for discretionary spending.
No kidding! Looking at that picture, I would be beyond worried if that was my tap water.
What is a hospital going to tell a member of the public with HIPPA laws? As police chief he has a great deal of deferred power. Officials will talk to him. Private citizen making an inquiry is going to get crickets. Heck--have you ever been walking down the street or walked outside your home and found a police or fire department cordon? Asked what's going on and the fire department won't respond to your questions and the police department will tell you to go back in your house or move along.
One point of Devil's Advocate. Social media, YouTube and mobile phone video has created a very difficult situation. People who are untrained in reporting are making wild statements. And Evil People are undermining good faith everywhere (news, politics, public safety, health, citizenship, the rule of law).
I've never ever seen so many legal cases taking this strong line against free speech in my lifetime. These are extraordinary times.
In fact I've already started collecting evidence on a no-win-no-fee basis.
Ready for action
“Don’t share concern about water quality online, or else”
It's so not the same, I'm straining to understand what you think the point you are making is.
It’s been five years since multiple COVID-19 vaccines have been widely available and administered worldwide, and just about the worst common side effects have been a small risk of mild, self-resolving myocarditis in mRNA vaccines and an increased risk of clotting for adenoviral vector vaccines which have been either discontinued or fallen out of use.
Past those, there have been rare (~5 per million doses) cases of Guillain-Barré or anaphylaxis, but those are broadly in line with risk profiles for other vaccines.
Despite repeated insistence from chronically-online nutjobs, the sky has not fallen, and the well-known, well-published, and well-studied risks of these vaccines remain drastically lower than the risks of actually contracting the disease they inhibit. Which is the whole goddamn point.
Now multiply that by how many people got it, and you see the number is not small at all.
Note: I have been vaxed myself.
Now consider that these risks are well-known, well-publicized, well-studied, and well-accepted and nobody is getting arrested for talking about them.
Now consider that these risks are—again—fully in-line with the risks from other vaccines.
Now consider that the number of hospitalizations in the U.S. from Tylenol annually suggests something north of 7,000 adverse effects per million people.
There are a gazillion and one reasonable things one can find to be mad about these days. COVID-19 vaccine adverse events aren’t one of them.
Saying nothing of the future of abortion & contraception, U.S. conservatives base their worldview on sexuality & reproduction and seek to burden it with fixtures that we have already spent hundreds of year to free ourselves from. At the same time, they take their eye off the ball of keeping our country competitive in the world. How embarrassing it is now to have the Chinese president suggest that the U.S. is in decline and that it shouldn't get caught in a Thucydides Trap.
Yet, that is where Trump has put us indeed.
It's strange how this 59-year-old incident keeps getting brought up. Friendly fire happens all the time, and Israel apologized and paid reparations ages ago.
One needn't dig too deep to see there isn't too much wiggle room for mere misunderstanding. The nearly defenseless ship suffered 2 hours of withering attack by both waves of jets and torpedo boats; this with an American flag and its hull number in open display as it operated in international waters. The context was that this ship was an intelligence ship bristling with antennas and recording everything it could from the combatants in the ongoing six-day-war in 1967.
If there's any conspiracy, its how for years afterward whenever a congressman sought an investigation as requested by one of the family of those killed, the effort was silently killed despite its impact, over and over.
There are a lot of details involved and many actions to be assessed on both sides, but it should merit more than a Navy Court of Inquiry. When the captain of the ship received his Medal of Honor for saving his ship while injured, it was awarded to him by the Secretary of the Navy quietly at the Washington Navy Yard. The usual procedure is that the MoH be presented by the president in the White House in a ceremony. So, there's that.
Soldiers have uniforms with distinguishing colors/marks in open display, yet millions of soldiers have died by friendly fire. Lots of friendly planes have been shot down too despite IFF. No system for identifying friendly (or neutral) assets is foolproof.
Source: I was threatened with a lawsuit by my own town for criticizing them online, but the ACLU helped me counter sue and win a settlement for violating my first amendment rights.
For a long time saying tabaco creates lung cancers was basically a conspiracy theory and saying it is healthy was free speech.
Prior to the internet, the "free speech" you're thinking of was down to whoever owned the printing press of interest.
The OP was about the government punishing a woman for criticizing their public utility.
use a 5micron, and 1micron particulate filter in series, and it looks like it came from a bottle.
you would be well advised to test for heavy metals, esp. arsenic
most people here dont use softening or reverse osmosis
It would be a violation of HIPAA for a medical system to disclose that to a private individual. The State Health Services or TCEQ would need to conduct that investigation and ask those questions. Both of those are state level agencies and would require significant momentum for a small town like Trinidad to trigger their attention. Ironically, it sounds like her social media post and the Streisand effect around it have triggered a TCEQ boil water notice and (likely) an investigation.
It is absolutely bizarre for a municipal or county law enforcement agency to take interest in this kind of thing. Texas Rangers and federal authorities should be looking at what triggered her arrest and whatever investigation came before it. That's assuming Greg Abbot, Dan Patrick, or Ken Paxton haven't totally compromised them at this point.