And the first amendment protects all of those ways - as well as your right to petition other legislators, even if they are not your representatives.
I am just not seeing (a) why anyone thinks this is not the case legally and (b) why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to change it.
If a congressperson you dislike proposes national legislation that you oppose, but they are not your representative, are you saying you would have no first amendment right to protest or petition them?
It might at first glance but... why? What in the letter of the first amendment, or the judicial history of interpreting it, leads you to think that?
Congresspeople propose and vote on laws that impact the entire country.
Consider this - what if a couple high-profile congresspeople cosponsor a new bill with sweeping consequences that you deeply disagree with. Perhaps you are even a member of a national advocacy network that opposes the bill on strong moral, ethical, legal etc. principles. You decide to join a group of people who are traveling to the district of one of those congresspeople, where they are holding a public town hall to answer questions about the bill.
At the door, security asks you for proof that you live in the district. When they determine that you do not, they deny you admission to the event. You decide to join a group of protesters outside, and the congressperson's staff calls the police, and asks the police to remove every protester who is not a constituent of the congressperson. Doesn't matter if you are protesting peacefully or in designated zones or anything - you are not represented by this congressperson, so you have no constitutional right to be there. The police remove you, and all other non-locals in your group.
Would you feel your First Amendment rights had been violated? I sure would.
The distinction for me is the constituency part. I don't expect a representative from another state to listen to me since they don't represent me.
A lot of people have been focusing on that distinction but as far as I know it has no basis in law and, honestly, seems like a really dangerous and limiting direction to go with the first amendment. It is the right of The People to petition The Government, not just the right of constituents to petition their representatives.
Better still (and I know this will never happen) they should just kill the Opinion section entirely, along with many other major newspapers.
It's not a useful function for them anymore. It serves no purpose. As many have pointed out, they've laid off a lot of copy editors and fact checkers but they are still paying the hefty salaries of celebrity columnists.
Quality primary reporting is something the NYT can still be great at - and something they are poised to do better than newer operations in many ways (or were before they started gutting their apparatus). Opinion and editorial is not - it means nothing to have it in the New York Times. There's more insight in blogs and twitter megathreads than ten issues of the NYT op-ed section combined.
All it does is say: "you have to take everything these people say seriously, and discuss it at length, even if it's dumb fluff you'd ignore or briefly mock then forget about anywhere else, because it's got our banner at the top, so now it's important and citation-worthy and it 'matters'. And we are totally certain that all these people will have a new opinion worthy of that vaunted status every single week - so certain that we will commit to publishing and promoting those opinions in advance."
Have you ever considered publicly defending your policy, describing your policy in detail, sharing with your own community the transparent details of how your censorship operates?
Well let's see. Our policy is: we allow completely open, anonymous comments without requiring the creation of an account or even the provision of a temporary email address - one can simply type anything they want in the box, hit submit and (barring a few spam filters that try to keep the deluge of spam out of our comments, and can occasionally misfire) it will show up on the site.
Perhaps we do need to offer a defense of this policy. After all, it is extremely rare, practically unheard of on the modern web - in comparison to most blogs, and all social media, our comment section is one of the most open and least moderated on the web. It's true that some people think this is crazy of us, and that we should be doing more to block/ban people like you, since to most of our commenters you don't add anything of value and in fact detract from the quality of discussion by poisoning it with bad-faith questions (which appears to be your goal).
To those people I would defend our policy thusly: we get so much great content from completely anonymous commenters (they won both first place spots in this week's comments post, which will be appearing shortly!) that we're willing to put up with the people who abuse the system for the purpose of trolling and disruption. We love the anonymous portion of our audience and are committed to accommodating them, and we have plenty of readers who have very good reasons for wanting to remain anonymous when they engage here. We value them more than we value the idea of blocking off some trolls.
Beyond that, we don't have much in the way of a "policy". We do have a very basic voting/reporting system that can result in some comments receiving small badges of recognition, while others have a single click placed in between them and the reader. That can't be what you're referring to though, since only a paranoid weirdo or a disingenuous troll would complain about that as "censorship".
It's a common misconception that as long as you aren't selling something, it can't be infringement. This is sadly not the case. So there's a big gulf in between your two poles of creating and selling - called "sharing it at all and letting anyone other than yourself hear it" - for which an artist can still get in trouble even if they aren't making a penny.
As for your question about the impact of sampling laws so far, well, though I share your belief in remembering the separation between art as art and art as commerce, the reality is the two remain intertwined as well. And a lot of classic sample-based hip-hop albums (Paul's Boutique being the most common example) would simply not be released today, at all, and that is a shame.
Yes, I did, and I continue to do so. To the point it annoys a lot of my liberal friends because I am so critical of Obama. The drone apparatus he constructed and the extra-judicial killings it enacted were (and are) atrocities. As, in fact, were many of the "perfectly legal" uses of drones and other military actions under his administration. Obama is no longer president. None of these problems have been solved.
So you love the American system and American laws, just not the part of the highest law of America that says the President does not have absolute power and cannot, in fact, authorize someone to commit murder?
So like, you're just openly and proudly a fascist, basically?
From the plain language of the statute itself, yes. But have a look at the record of the congressional discussion when that language was drafted - there is much talk about the intent being largely about "encouraging" them to do so:
If you're in no rush, wait for a sale - it gets a massive discount a few times a year, in Steam and the Humble Store (or sometimes a Humble Bundle). You can get it for like $20 or less, instead of $80 (and pick up a few of the extra sprites and tilesets for cheap at the same time).
Nintendo, like many game companies, frequently send scouts to game jam events and look at the results of major online game jams (though probably not this one... yet!) to hire the next generation of AAA designers.
See, unlike you, they like games and game-makers, rather than hating them. They look for the gems of innovation and creativity in quickly-made jam games like these, rather than reflexively mocking them for a momentary hit of self-satisfied smugness. In short, they have much less pathetic and needy inner lives than you do.
A Warren spokesperson has since confirmed that the policy applies to Apple, and even directly states that it would prevent them from both owning the App Store and owning any apps available through it: https://twitter.com/broderick/status/1104053142440869888
On the post: Knight Institute Warns Rep. Ocasio-Cortez That She, Like Trump, Can't Block People On Twitter
Re: Re: Re:
And the first amendment protects all of those ways - as well as your right to petition other legislators, even if they are not your representatives.
I am just not seeing (a) why anyone thinks this is not the case legally and (b) why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to change it.
If a congressperson you dislike proposes national legislation that you oppose, but they are not your representative, are you saying you would have no first amendment right to protest or petition them?
On the post: Knight Institute Warns Rep. Ocasio-Cortez That She, Like Trump, Can't Block People On Twitter
Re: muting does NOT achieve the same result
The 'constituency' argument seems salient.
It might at first glance but... why? What in the letter of the first amendment, or the judicial history of interpreting it, leads you to think that?
Congresspeople propose and vote on laws that impact the entire country.
Consider this - what if a couple high-profile congresspeople cosponsor a new bill with sweeping consequences that you deeply disagree with. Perhaps you are even a member of a national advocacy network that opposes the bill on strong moral, ethical, legal etc. principles. You decide to join a group of people who are traveling to the district of one of those congresspeople, where they are holding a public town hall to answer questions about the bill.
At the door, security asks you for proof that you live in the district. When they determine that you do not, they deny you admission to the event. You decide to join a group of protesters outside, and the congressperson's staff calls the police, and asks the police to remove every protester who is not a constituent of the congressperson. Doesn't matter if you are protesting peacefully or in designated zones or anything - you are not represented by this congressperson, so you have no constitutional right to be there. The police remove you, and all other non-locals in your group.
Would you feel your First Amendment rights had been violated? I sure would.
On the post: Knight Institute Warns Rep. Ocasio-Cortez That She, Like Trump, Can't Block People On Twitter
Re:
The distinction for me is the constituency part. I don't expect a representative from another state to listen to me since they don't represent me.
A lot of people have been focusing on that distinction but as far as I know it has no basis in law and, honestly, seems like a really dangerous and limiting direction to go with the first amendment. It is the right of The People to petition The Government, not just the right of constituents to petition their representatives.
On the post: Bedbug Privilege: Bret Stephens Uses His NY Times Column To Suggest Jokingly Comparing Him To A Bedbug Is Prelude To Ethnic Genocide
Re: No really, keep digging
Better still (and I know this will never happen) they should just kill the Opinion section entirely, along with many other major newspapers.
It's not a useful function for them anymore. It serves no purpose. As many have pointed out, they've laid off a lot of copy editors and fact checkers but they are still paying the hefty salaries of celebrity columnists.
Quality primary reporting is something the NYT can still be great at - and something they are poised to do better than newer operations in many ways (or were before they started gutting their apparatus). Opinion and editorial is not - it means nothing to have it in the New York Times. There's more insight in blogs and twitter megathreads than ten issues of the NYT op-ed section combined.
All it does is say: "you have to take everything these people say seriously, and discuss it at length, even if it's dumb fluff you'd ignore or briefly mock then forget about anywhere else, because it's got our banner at the top, so now it's important and citation-worthy and it 'matters'. And we are totally certain that all these people will have a new opinion worthy of that vaunted status every single week - so certain that we will commit to publishing and promoting those opinions in advance."
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: August 4th - 10th
Re:
Have you ever considered publicly defending your policy, describing your policy in detail, sharing with your own community the transparent details of how your censorship operates?
Well let's see. Our policy is: we allow completely open, anonymous comments without requiring the creation of an account or even the provision of a temporary email address - one can simply type anything they want in the box, hit submit and (barring a few spam filters that try to keep the deluge of spam out of our comments, and can occasionally misfire) it will show up on the site.
Perhaps we do need to offer a defense of this policy. After all, it is extremely rare, practically unheard of on the modern web - in comparison to most blogs, and all social media, our comment section is one of the most open and least moderated on the web. It's true that some people think this is crazy of us, and that we should be doing more to block/ban people like you, since to most of our commenters you don't add anything of value and in fact detract from the quality of discussion by poisoning it with bad-faith questions (which appears to be your goal).
To those people I would defend our policy thusly: we get so much great content from completely anonymous commenters (they won both first place spots in this week's comments post, which will be appearing shortly!) that we're willing to put up with the people who abuse the system for the purpose of trolling and disruption. We love the anonymous portion of our audience and are committed to accommodating them, and we have plenty of readers who have very good reasons for wanting to remain anonymous when they engage here. We value them more than we value the idea of blocking off some trolls.
Beyond that, we don't have much in the way of a "policy". We do have a very basic voting/reporting system that can result in some comments receiving small badges of recognition, while others have a single click placed in between them and the reader. That can't be what you're referring to though, since only a paranoid weirdo or a disingenuous troll would complain about that as "censorship".
On the post: European Court Of Justice Rules On Three Big Copyright Cases
Re: Re: Re:
It's a common misconception that as long as you aren't selling something, it can't be infringement. This is sadly not the case. So there's a big gulf in between your two poles of creating and selling - called "sharing it at all and letting anyone other than yourself hear it" - for which an artist can still get in trouble even if they aren't making a penny.
As for your question about the impact of sampling laws so far, well, though I share your belief in remembering the separation between art as art and art as commerce, the reality is the two remain intertwined as well. And a lot of classic sample-based hip-hop albums (Paul's Boutique being the most common example) would simply not be released today, at all, and that is a shame.
On the post: Josh Hawley Wants To Appoint Himself Product Manager For The Internet
Re: Law of intended consequences
Well, for 30 minutes - then it has to cut you off!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I did, and I continue to do so. To the point it annoys a lot of my liberal friends because I am so critical of Obama. The drone apparatus he constructed and the extra-judicial killings it enacted were (and are) atrocities. As, in fact, were many of the "perfectly legal" uses of drones and other military actions under his administration. Obama is no longer president. None of these problems have been solved.
...Next question?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
So you love the American system and American laws, just not the part of the highest law of America that says the President does not have absolute power and cannot, in fact, authorize someone to commit murder?
So like, you're just openly and proudly a fascist, basically?
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: July 21st - 27th
Somehow I had missed our post this week about a first amendment lawsuit regarding video game muting - so I didn't even call out the most coincidental parallel between 2009 and now.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: "Ages" not "Sentences"
whoops thanks, that was dumb of me. fixed
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Darnit
It was close! Somewhere in the top 5 if I recall correctly.
On the post: It's One Thing For Trolls And Grandstanding Politicians To Get CDA 230 Wrong, But The Press Shouldn't Help Them
Re: I object to "Encourage"
From the plain language of the statute itself, yes. But have a look at the record of the congressional discussion when that language was drafted - there is much talk about the intent being largely about "encouraging" them to do so:
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1995/8/4/house-section/article/h8460-1
On the post: Game Jam Winner Spotlight: The Garden Of God
Re:
RPG Maker is a lot of fun.
If you're in no rush, wait for a sale - it gets a massive discount a few times a year, in Steam and the Humble Store (or sometimes a Humble Bundle). You can get it for like $20 or less, instead of $80 (and pick up a few of the extra sprites and tilesets for cheap at the same time).
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Took you a month to notice the Review was gone.
Wow, is that really how you find your excitement in life?
The history posts will be back, we just occasionally swap them out for other things on saturdays.
On the post: Game Jam Winner Spotlight: Not A Fish
Re: Re: Re:
I never called Nintendo "evil"
On the post: Game Jam Winner Spotlight: Not A Fish
Re: Re:
(they mostly also aren't still talking about "prom" and "10s" and "2s" as adults, which helps with the whole less-pathetic-than-you thing)
On the post: Game Jam Winner Spotlight: Not A Fish
Re:
Nintendo, like many game companies, frequently send scouts to game jam events and look at the results of major online game jams (though probably not this one... yet!) to hire the next generation of AAA designers.
See, unlike you, they like games and game-makers, rather than hating them. They look for the gems of innovation and creativity in quickly-made jam games like these, rather than reflexively mocking them for a momentary hit of self-satisfied smugness. In short, they have much less pathetic and needy inner lives than you do.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Wants To Break Up Amazon, Google And Facebook; But Does Her Plan Make Any Sense?
Re: Funny (strange, not haha)
A Warren spokesperson has since confirmed that the policy applies to Apple, and even directly states that it would prevent them from both owning the App Store and owning any apps available through it: https://twitter.com/broderick/status/1104053142440869888
On the post: VP Of 'Students For Free Speech' Sues Critic For (Among Other Things) Calling Him A 'Free Speech Asshole'
Re: Re: Re:
(It has been held, in some circumstances, to cover certain aspects of political views - but that is most certainly not in the text of the act)
Next >>