Facebook Gave Nebraska Cops A Teen's DMs So They Could Prosecute Her For Having An Abortion

[usonian]

24. This is how tyranny takes over.

When people let one "little" breach of the constitution after another slide, AND DON'T STAND UP TO INJUSTICE.

I posted yesterday:

I *HATE* to go negative on Facebook, but:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-turned-chat-messages-mother-daughter-now-charged-abortion-rcna42185
Facebook turned over chat messages between mother and daughter now charged over abortion

Facebook turned over the chats of a mother and her daughter to Nebraska police after they were served with a warrant as part of an investigation into an illegal abortion, court documents show.



If we expect jurors to nullify unconstitutional laws against abortion (because, IMO, they establish one religion's beliefs as law, against other religions who do not share that belief,) then companies SHOULD REFUSE warrants based on blatantly unconstitutional laws.

BUT THEY DON'T
Zuckerberg, roast in hell.

As for nullification, STANDING UP TO TYRANNY is the RIGHT THING TO DO.
And "going with the flow" puts you, your company, in the company of cowards and "compliants" that tyrants need.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217012489
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/08/roe-v-wade-how-to-keep-women-who-have-abortions-from-going-to-prison.html
The One Thing People Can Do to Keep Anyone Who Has an Abortion Out of Prison

Restoring the rights lost in Dobbs will require massive political mobilization–far more than any one person could possibly achieve. But one person is all it takes to stave off at least some of the most devastating harms of criminalization. A single juror’s vote of “not guilty” can spare a defendant—any potential parent, doctor, friend, or anyone else prosecuted and brought to trial—from criminal conviction. Regardless of the strength of the evidence. Regardless of what the judge believes. Regardless of how many other jurors disagree. It’s every juror’s super-power.

Jury nullification–or the power of jurors to vote to acquit even in the face of overwhelming evidence–is rooted in English common law and has been an American tradition since before the nation’s founding. For instance, in 1735, a journalist and printer named John Peter Zenger was charged with libel for publishing articles critical of New York’s colonial governor. Zenger did not deny publishing the articles. Instead, he argued that they were true. Although “truth” was not a valid defense to libel at the time, he asked the jury to acquit him on that ground nonetheless. They did. Other examples of nullification abound. Juries nullified prosecutions of abolitionists charged under the Fugitive Slave Act and businesspeople charged with alcohol-trafficking during Prohibition.

https://reason.com/2022/08/05/he-was-arrested-for-promoting-jury-nullification-a-federal-court-says-that-was-illegal/
He Was Arrested for Promoting Jury Nullification. A Federal Court Says That Was Illegal.

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2022/05/nullification-in-abortion-prosecutions.html
Nullification in Abortion Prosecutions

Five Justices are poised to disrupt a half century of expectations, and there is little political recourse. It is precisely in such cases that the jury can serve as a bulwark against the injustices of the state(s).

Update, they did.

AND FUCK ZUCK