this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
1104 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
85420 readers
4987 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It seems like there's a problem there. They want an elected body to pass an ordinance against something another independent elected body is already under contract to do.
In my simple brain, so be it. Why not do that?
In my rational brain, having sat through at least 100 council and commission meetings, it's not that simple and certainly could open the county to legal issues in at least three ways (flock sues county for breach of contract; sheriff sues council for overreach; pro-flock community members sue county for whatever they can think of).
To me, this is a time for the people to play politics. Schedule meetings with these council members individually. Invite them to anti-flock parties. Convince them to be on your anti flock side. If you get one, that one can work on the others from the inside.
By the way, we already have legislation against flock -- it's called the Fourth Amendment.