The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.

  • BuelldozerA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You do see how blatantly biased and anti-1st amendment that is, right?

    It IS blatantly biased and anti-1st Amendment, no question about it. However Missouri isn’t the first to do it and I can provide several examples of Blue States engaging in this same tactic, starting prior to the pandemic.

    California for instance has a politically motivated Travel Ban to numerous other States, including Florida, that’s founded in who the State will spend money with. Los Angeles once declared that it wouldn’t hire vendors who donated to the NRA and tried to force them disclose that. It’s not just California either, New York has several similar laws.

    It’s all politicians flexing their authority over State spending in pursuit of causes that their citizens care about.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      California for instance has a politically motivated Travel Ban to numerous other States, including Florida, that’s founded in who the State will spend money with. Los Angeles once declared that it wouldn’t hire vendors who donated to the NRA and tried to force them disclose that. It’s not just California either, New York has several similar laws.

      Can you point to the bills or official policies in question? I’m actually curious what they say and how different from this or not they actually are.