"And how is this even relevant to conflating public house with public housing?"
No you are conflating centuries. Using the wrong term for the wrong century. You confused a 21st century pub with 16th century public houses which were the public housing of their time and usually had to offer some set number of rooms/beds to be licensed.
Now you are too ignorant to recognize you mistake.
The original poster who may be you had the mistake pointed out immediately.
"Although, I would ask whether the AC you responded to means accommodation or if he meant "public house" as in "pub"."
You used the ancient word "public house" with the 21st century meaning for "pub" which are two differnt things.
A modern pub evolved from the medieval-renaissance "public house" but they are not the same. If you use the older term you imply the older definition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I Invented the Keyboard Necktie!!!!
Its a well known and understood irony with "L"ibertarians. They claim to be libertarians but they try to run their own world as authoritarians. Mike is a "L"ibertarian who in his own life acts as an authoritarian. Sadly this isn't uncommon.
We can get into a big psychological debate about this. Libertarianism is a very good excuse for people who are natural authoritarians to avoid accountability. Many manipulative coping mechanisms can be classified as guilt avoidance. An authoritarian adopting libertarianism is actually a very effective guilt avoidance mechanism.
Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.
Children children children. Mike has made you into a bunch of children.
"Honestly, Baghdad Bob...you really need to stop trying to argue from assumed authority.
I mean, don't get me wrong; it's usually pretty amusing to watch you clown around. Aside from making readers snicker and smirk at you I don't really see these masochistic exercises of yours doing you much good."
I never claim to be an authority just smarter than you, which isn't saying much. I don't make these absolutist religious arguments. I operate in the real world which is very grey, even on constitutional issues. Its very easy to give examples that falsify your absolutist religious arguments because your arguments have to be correct 100% of the time.
You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do.
That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.
Is it at all possible for Mike's Authoratarinas to make a free speech arguemnt without refering to Nazi's. We know you don't care about Nazis. You are using an absurd extrapolation in order to suppress any speech you don't like.
"these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene"
Asinine simply asinine! So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene? This is just another example of this pathetic blog writers making up their own rules.
"when considered as a whole" means to take all factors into account that doesn't mean that one single factor cant sway the entire decision on its own.
It's like sports judging. Take boxing for example considered as a whole rounds a scored based on "clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship, and defense."
That doesn't mean the the fighter that wins the most of the 4 wins the round. A fighter can be so dominate in clean punching that the other criteria don't matter.
"Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. Jesus Christ how does this tripe get through.
I did very much so. Mike seems to appeal to sycophants. He doesn't allow people to post who disagree with him. He polices his blog like a god damn gestapo. I believe his authoritarian attitude is why he is a relative failure to his other peers. The hallmark of the late Gen-X early millennials thought leaders is a wide open dialogue.
Mike is an authoritarian who doesn't want to entertain the concept that people actually disagree with him.
That is why he was once a shining star and today is considered a flash in the pan.
I've been a bouncer. No you cant. You can risk it, many do. You can hope that the cops will be happy you just made their job easier but in the back of your mind you know its illegal.
Just because you have seen people speeding and getting away with it doesn't make speeding legal.
If its a dive bar as people have used as an example. Yes lots of bouncers at dive bars use physical force on the assumption that the patron doesn't know the law. But you won't see that @#%^ at an expensive night club. Its too big a risk that the kid has an army of mommy and daddy's lawyers behind him.
"In other words, yes, the gov't can compel a very limited amount of speech on a private business, as I described with a restaurant. But that does not give you the right to demand that YOUR speech must be hosted as well."
If the government passes a law such as that which exists within the state of California or as Florida has passed yes I do. The power of the state to regulate that in the public interest is broad.
To this point. You may have noticed that the NFL in 2020 had to change their collective bargaining agreement over off-season marijuana use because the CBA was illegal in many states that have legalized marijuana.
Basically they couldn't argue that prohibiting off-season pot use had an "essential enterprise-related operations of the employer and breach of the agreement will result in a material disruption of the essential enterprise related operations of the employer."
As such they had to strike the illegal provision from the CBA.
Again for the 100th time on this ignorant site.
A CONTRACT CANNOT BE IN VIOLATOIIN OF PULBIC POLICY!
"He might have a point if it weren't for those pesky "codes of conduct" the employee usually signs to upon being employed."
It all depends on the state. In California the most well known example of 'otherwise lawful conduct' policies the law only allows for such clauses in any contract of bargaining agreement if the
"agreement is necessary to protect the essential enterprise-related operations of the employer and breach of the agreement will result in a material disruption of the essential enterprise related operations of the employer"
Most 'otherwise lawful conduct' states have such provisions. If they didn't the 'otherwise lawful conduct' statute would be moot.
This is very limited. You "L"ibertarians have a warped view of the real world. States have every right and power under law to limit what can and cannot be included in any contract.
Ah I suggest you read about your savior Judge Hinkle. While Mike is gushing over this decision Judge Hinkle made almost the exact same arguments in Jones et al v. DeSantis. Hinkle's go to is 'I can find no legitimate governmental interests' only to get @#%% slapped by the 11th circuit.
Now he is making the exact same stupid arguments to the same appeals court. Why do you think its going to be an different?
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And how is this even relevant to conflating public house with public housing?"
No you are conflating centuries. Using the wrong term for the wrong century. You confused a 21st century pub with 16th century public houses which were the public housing of their time and usually had to offer some set number of rooms/beds to be licensed.
Now you are too ignorant to recognize you mistake.
The original poster who may be you had the mistake pointed out immediately.
"Although, I would ask whether the AC you responded to means accommodation or if he meant "public house" as in "pub"."
You used the ancient word "public house" with the 21st century meaning for "pub" which are two differnt things.
A modern pub evolved from the medieval-renaissance "public house" but they are not the same. If you use the older term you imply the older definition.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe: Re: Re: Re: I Invented the Keyboard Necktie!!!!
Its a well known and understood irony with "L"ibertarians. They claim to be libertarians but they try to run their own world as authoritarians. Mike is a "L"ibertarian who in his own life acts as an authoritarian. Sadly this isn't uncommon.
We can get into a big psychological debate about this. Libertarianism is a very good excuse for people who are natural authoritarians to avoid accountability. Many manipulative coping mechanisms can be classified as guilt avoidance. An authoritarian adopting libertarianism is actually a very effective guilt avoidance mechanism.
'I do what I want!'
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re:
I'd suggest you look up the word "considered."
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is 100% prurient. It is a prurient metaphor, child.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re:
Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.
Children children children. Mike has made you into a bunch of children.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re:
Oh child I already gave you an example. Biden on his knees fellating Xi. That is purely prurient but also a clear political metaphor.
Why is this site populated with children. Oh thats right Mike is a "L"ibertarian but runs his site like an authoritarian.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re:
"Honestly, Baghdad Bob...you really need to stop trying to argue from assumed authority.
I mean, don't get me wrong; it's usually pretty amusing to watch you clown around. Aside from making readers snicker and smirk at you I don't really see these masochistic exercises of yours doing you much good."
I never claim to be an authority just smarter than you, which isn't saying much. I don't make these absolutist religious arguments. I operate in the real world which is very grey, even on constitutional issues. Its very easy to give examples that falsify your absolutist religious arguments because your arguments have to be correct 100% of the time.
You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do.
That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re:
"It actually does considering that it's what the law says."
That is not what the law says. You are taking the word "whole" and ignoring the word "considered."
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Well…
Is it at all possible for Mike's Authoratarinas to make a free speech arguemnt without refering to Nazi's. We know you don't care about Nazis. You are using an absurd extrapolation in order to suppress any speech you don't like.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
"So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene."
So a picture of Joe Biden on his knees fellating Xi Jinping would not be obscene as it has serious political value?
We all get the metaphor and the serious political meaning of the metaphor but that doesn't mean such a picture isn't obscene.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
What a horrendous legal interpretation?
"when considered as a whole"
"these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene"
Asinine simply asinine! So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene? This is just another example of this pathetic blog writers making up their own rules.
"when considered as a whole" means to take all factors into account that doesn't mean that one single factor cant sway the entire decision on its own.
It's like sports judging. Take boxing for example considered as a whole rounds a scored based on "clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship, and defense."
That doesn't mean the the fighter that wins the most of the 4 wins the round. A fighter can be so dominate in clean punching that the other criteria don't matter.
"Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. Jesus Christ how does this tripe get through.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: Re: Re: From the party that brought you 'small government'..
"The Fscking Federalist Society is democrat?"
You mean John Roberts?5
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe: Re: I Invented the Keyboard Necktie!!!!
"If only you thought things through…"
I did very much so. Mike seems to appeal to sycophants. He doesn't allow people to post who disagree with him. He polices his blog like a god damn gestapo. I believe his authoritarian attitude is why he is a relative failure to his other peers. The hallmark of the late Gen-X early millennials thought leaders is a wide open dialogue.
Mike is an authoritarian who doesn't want to entertain the concept that people actually disagree with him.
That is why he was once a shining star and today is considered a flash in the pan.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been a bouncer. No you cant. You can risk it, many do. You can hope that the cops will be happy you just made their job easier but in the back of your mind you know its illegal.
Just because you have seen people speeding and getting away with it doesn't make speeding legal.
If its a dive bar as people have used as an example. Yes lots of bouncers at dive bars use physical force on the assumption that the patron doesn't know the law. But you won't see that @#%^ at an expensive night club. Its too big a risk that the kid has an army of mommy and daddy's lawyers behind him.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
"In other words, yes, the gov't can compel a very limited amount of speech on a private business, as I described with a restaurant. But that does not give you the right to demand that YOUR speech must be hosted as well."
If the government passes a law such as that which exists within the state of California or as Florida has passed yes I do. The power of the state to regulate that in the public interest is broad.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: Re: Re: Dear Mr. Trump
To this point. You may have noticed that the NFL in 2020 had to change their collective bargaining agreement over off-season marijuana use because the CBA was illegal in many states that have legalized marijuana.
Basically they couldn't argue that prohibiting off-season pot use had an "essential enterprise-related operations of the employer and breach of the agreement will result in a material disruption of the essential enterprise related operations of the employer."
As such they had to strike the illegal provision from the CBA.
Again for the 100th time on this ignorant site.
A CONTRACT CANNOT BE IN VIOLATOIIN OF PULBIC POLICY!
Get that through your thick "L"ibertarian skulls.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: Re:
"He might have a point if it weren't for those pesky "codes of conduct" the employee usually signs to upon being employed."
It all depends on the state. In California the most well known example of 'otherwise lawful conduct' policies the law only allows for such clauses in any contract of bargaining agreement if the
"agreement is necessary to protect the essential enterprise-related operations of the employer and breach of the agreement will result in a material disruption of the essential enterprise related operations of the employer"
Most 'otherwise lawful conduct' states have such provisions. If they didn't the 'otherwise lawful conduct' statute would be moot.
This is very limited. You "L"ibertarians have a warped view of the real world. States have every right and power under law to limit what can and cannot be included in any contract.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawRe: Re: I Invented the Keyboard Necktie!!!!
Ah I suggest you read about your savior Judge Hinkle. While Mike is gushing over this decision Judge Hinkle made almost the exact same arguments in Jones et al v. DeSantis. Hinkle's go to is 'I can find no legitimate governmental interests' only to get @#%% slapped by the 11th circuit.
Now he is making the exact same stupid arguments to the same appeals court. Why do you think its going to be an different?
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: From the party that brought you 'small government'...
Those 1980s Corporate Libertarians are all democrats now. And good @#%^@#$% riddance.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: Dear Mr. Trump
"How many people have you fired for saying something you didn't like?"
Only time that came up my employer got introduced to the states " lawful conduct" statute really quick.
Yes states have the right to restrict an private employers ability to fire employees for what they say.
Again Tech Dirt is Mike's Libertarian fantasy land.
Next >>