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
It honestly sounds like the judge has a point. The plaintiffs contended that there was a constitutional right. There doesn't appear to be, in Mississippi.
That depends if you agree with the Declaration of Independence. Do you think that all men are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If you do, then you think that they are entitled to non-poisoned water, or at least for the government to make a reasonable effort to provide said water.
But look, this is something that's hard for American court systems to grasp. In the United States when people talk about rights, they typically only think about the Bill of Rights. And that's a subset of our rights.
Yeah this is total bullshit and all, but The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. It's irrelevant to the situation, unfortunately. You can't walk into a court and cite the Declaration of Independence as law or precedent.
I mean, I guess you could, but no judge would take you seriously because that's not how jurisprudence works in the US.
Entitled to does not me provided. It means not blocked, or not taken away. You could argue that by not telling the people, that they blocked their right, but that's a bit of a stretch. Essentially the peolle where always free to buy clean water from the store, or go to some other source.
If it meant provide... healthcare would be free, as that is part of the pursuit of life.
What this may be, is fraud. They charged the people for the water. I am sure somewhere in various publications they call it safe. If the levels were higher than some publication with reasonable authority on the subject calls safe, that would be fraud. The article however didn't go into those details. I suspect that while the levels were considered by many to be unsafe, there probably lacks an authority on the exact levels that are safe. We ran into this with pur school district. They tested and found some levels were higher than typical guidance, but that "official" unsafe levels weren't present. So they called it safe. Only people who dug into the data realized they were sugar coating it. But they weren't legally lieing.