Yep, seems so. Here are some examples:

6 Laws With Super Misleading Names

Did you know that members of Congress can name their laws whatever they heck they want, whether or not it actually represents the content? The result is plenty of legislation with wholly misleading names. Let’s take a look at some of the more egregious examples of bills and court decisions that are far from what their names suggest:

1. The Patriot Act

There’s no better place to start than with the USA PATRIOT Act. Many people don’t realize that it’s actually an acronym: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. While that’s a decent description of the law, hiding it behind something like patriotism really disguises its true purpose. Once they better understood the legislation, a lot of Americans opposed the extreme surveillance measures and general eroding of rights created by the act. Thanks to the name, though, it became almost unpatriotic to criticize the Patriot Act, which is probably why most of its effects persist to this day.

2. Right to Work Laws

Who wouldn’t support legislation designed to get people jobs, right? Alas, these laws, which just recently became adopted by Wisconsin thanks to its anti-labor governor, have the opposite effect of what they initially seem. Instead, Right to Work laws focus on busting up unions and union protections. Now, workers are actually more in jeopardy of being fired without cause and having their benefits taken away. “Right to work” is a misnomer, unless you expand the name to be “Right to work for poverty wages until your boss finds someone else to do the job for even cheaper.”

 3. Protect Life Act

Anti-abortion activists love to tack the word “life” into their arguments, and the Protect Life Act is no exception. The problem with the doomed legislation is that it neglected to protect the lives of pregnant women. By blocking access to affordable abortions, the Protect Life Act would ultimately threaten the lives of women who had valid medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy. So much for that “pro-life” argument.

 4. Citizens United

It’s no secret that our democracy has been corrupted with private interest money, and the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision is the culprit. The “Citizens United” term comes from the conservative lobbying group that won the case to pour endless money into elections as “free speech,” but, if anything, American citizens are united in overturning this decision. While a firm majority of Americans are against the decision, with a constitutional amendment necessary to undo Citizens United, it’s going to take an actual group of united citizens to make a difference.

 5. Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act may practically be a relic given multiple judiciary decisions ruling parts of it invalid, but that doesn’t make its name any less absurd. The law never “protected” marriage anyway — it merely made it an exclusive club by preventing same-sex couples from being able to legally wed. Contrary to this law’s faulty logic, you don’t have to stop marriages to save marriages!

 6. The Internet Freedom Act

Lest you think Congress is moving past these cheap, misleading names, just last week, U.S. representatives who have received big donations from the telecom industry introduced the Internet Freedom Act. The bill is geared toward destroying the recently established Net Neutrality. “Freedom” always sounds good, but this would take away rights from internet users and give all the power back to internet companies to decide how access to the internet is granted. That’s not really freedom at all!

Source

They're fuckin nihilists dude!

Yes, and the last Ebola outbreak is only just over, like 4 weeks ago, which means it took 18 months. And it'll be back at some point, for sure.

https://reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/fg6c5t/last_ebola_patient_discharged_in_dr_congo/

Avoid sewer chickens

I'm not seeing any mention here of the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act, which was introduced Tuesday, 23 June.

This new bill also comes hot on the heels of another proposal that critics say is secretly designed to kill strong consumer encryption, called the EARN IT bill, and the ambitious scope of LAEDA may be designed to make EARN IT look reasonable by comparison.

Source: Slate

What's going on here, is it a ploy to make EARN IT seem reasonable? Does it stand a chance if EARN IT fails to pass?