I seem to remember a different fascist nation who did crazy things that were all “legal”.
Politics
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
The problem here is what I consider the intentional too-narrow-a-point focus that our legal system has been moved towards to make it easier to get away with things. For emergency relief the party being harmed has to ask for it. The parties asking for emergency relief are not the people being fired, therefore are not the parties being harmed. It's stupid but she has to rule based on how the law works, which is hilarious that only one side has to play by the rules but I digress. She is giving them the opening to show to the court the harm being done to specific people for her to rule differently.