Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

OldBaldy1701E

(11,912 posts)

4. It seems like a ridiculous provision.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 3, 2026, 09:15 AM

Jul 3

How does one prove harm from the removal of history before said removal has an effect?

Such a thing usually does not have palpable harm until some time has passed. They are using this 'excuse' to ignore the effects of long term harm so that they don't have to acknowledge it in the first place. Their response isn basically "Since there is no harm right this second, there is no harm."

It is one of the ways Monsanto has gotten away with their shit for so long. No 'long term proof'... before the last few years anyway.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Rhiannon12866

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Appeals court reverses order requiring removed signs to be restored at National Park sites [View all] BumRushDaShow Jul 3 OP

Disappointing. nt SunSeeker Jul 3 #1

So, the courts say that revisionist history is acceptable. OldBaldy1701E Jul 3 #2

The lawyer for Democracy Forward noted that this Boston (1st Circuit) ruling was more of a technical/procedural issue BumRushDaShow Jul 3 #3

It seems like a ridiculous provision. OldBaldy1701E Jul 3 #4

For an "injunction" (or a temporary restraining order, etc) BumRushDaShow Jul 3 #5

Free speech? Democrat-supporting judge claims '8647' threat isn't a threat at all LetMyPeopleVote Jul 3 #6

There's a "6-7" in there too BumRushDaShow Jul 3 #7