If your child is old enough to (A) have his own credit card and (B) trundle down to the local store by himself to rent movies, he's old enough to watch an R-rated movie.
(And if not, and your young child is stealing your credit card and making a habit of walking to stores by himself to rent movies, perhaps you should question just what the hell kind of parent you are in the first place.)
Verizon (the very company people are bitching about here) offers a monthly plan with no contract. (I'm month to month right now, in fact. I won't be in a week or so when I get them to subsidize a new Droid for me, but then I have no problem with the huge ETF . . .) Looking at the other major carriers' plans, they all allow you to choose a plan with no contract. T-Mobile's month-to-month is lower than their with-contract, in fact.
Also, in the future, before you accuse someone of dishonesty, make sure you've done your homework first. Thanks.
Considering (A) there are a number of choices available for carriers offering subsidized phones through contracts, (B) you can always just shell out the money for the phone up front and go month-to-month without a contract anyway, and (C) there are several mainstream pay-as-you-go options, I'm going to go with my previous opinion: No legislation required.
Don't like Verizon's ETF? Don't sign with Verizon. Or buy the phone yourself and pay month-to-month.
(Curiously, despite your unsupported insistence that the mobile phone market is not a "free market", your solution seems to involve having the government dictate a "reasonable" ETF to the carriers, and we know that nothing makes a market more free than when the government determines prices by fiat, right?)
I believe the economic theory behind not having an independent inventor defense is that by giving all the rewards to the first inventor there is increased incentive to invent and disclose as soon as possible.
And the theory behind that, I would guess, is so people can start licensing the idea sooner rather than later. In practice (at least from the perspective of software patents), the current system makes it so easy to infringe accidentally that your best bet legally is to avoid looking at any patents at all (so you can't be accused of willful infringement later), keep your head down, and just hope you don't tread on someone else's monopoly when your product ships. Frustrating.
His freedom to criticize ESPN hasn't been removed. He can criticize it 24/7/365 (even on Twitter, if he wants).
He won't have a job anymore, but he can do it.
If I interview you as a potential babysitter, and you tell me that you find children sexy, I'm not going to hire you. That doesn't mean you lack free speech. It means your free speech can have consequences for your relationships, both private and professional.
It's called "freedom".
You have the freedom to say what you want, and I have the freedom to associate with you, or not, at my discretion. Bill Simmons has the freedom to say what he wants about ESPN and its partners, and ESPN in turn has the freedom to associate with him, or not, at their discretion.
To advocate anything else is to say that some can have freedom, but others cannot. I'd rather keep the door firmly shut on that kind of policy, thank you very much.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professional Unions & the 1st amendment
"because only the opinion of rich and powerful corporations count."
Sometimes, but in this case it's (A) common sense and (B) a fundamental understanding of the purpose of the constitution.
(A) Exercising your right to free speech can have consequences. Most people understand this. Do I have the right to call my wife a bitch? Yes. Can she refuse to speak to me, divorce me, or otherwise just make my marriage miserable? Yes. Shocking to hear that speech can have consequences, I know. "But wait, you say, work is different from your private life!" To which I reply, "Is it? If I call my wife a bitch while I'm on the clock, can she not get angry at me? Likewise, if I call my boss a prick when I'm not on the clock, can he not fire my ass?"
(B) Free speech protects you from the punishment from the government. Nothing more. Much like having freedom of the press does not guarantee that any newspaper will print any story you submit to them, free speech does not guarantee that other people will not take offense or otherwise censure you because of what you said.
If the government stops by your house to round you up for something you said, I'll be in the crowd of protesters supporting you 100% of the way. But if you whine about getting fired because you called your boss a prick to his face, you can expect me to be unmoved by your cries of "But it's free speeeech!".
So if I have free speech but I will be executed for it then I have free speech right?
Free speech means free from government punishments. ESPN (as a private entity) is free to impose any legal punishment in its belt, up to and including termination of employment. And no, executions by private parties aren't considered legal.
The silly part is, no one who thinks this is a free speech issue would ever apply the same criteria to their own private lives.
So the government can't regulate free speech but corporations can. That's just great.
I have a hard time seeing how ESPN can "regulate" my free speech, seeing as I don't work for them, nor have I signed any contract with them. The government, however . . .
at what level should you be allowed to have your free speech revoked?
Never. The government should never be able to revoke your free speech. If you sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement with a private entity, though, that's not a revocation of your free speech rights.
I think you misunderstand. The example was not an analogy for the countrygovernment; it was literal.
I.e. If you invite me over to your house, and I start screaming obscenities at you, do you have the right to kick me out, or does "free speech" compel you to let me stay?
The anonymous poster above seems to believe that all speech should be a free of all consequences from any source. Therefore, according to his logic, my screaming obscenities at you should not warrant the consequence of being removed from your private property.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professional Unions & the 1st amendment
If the free speech did not occur within the scope of their employment and if they didn't do anything illegal than you have no say to fire them.
According to you. Luckily for all of us, your opinion isn't reality.
If I were the paid spokesperson for a non-profit organization dedicated to banning cigarettes, and my boss caught me lighting up on my porch one evening, I would be history. It doesn't matter that smoking is a legal activity or that I'm doing it on my own time at home. Likewise, if I posted to my blog about how great smoking was and how everyone should do it, I am likewise history. Doesn't matter that it was my own private blog or that I only posted on my own time.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You talk about rights, yet you demand that a company continue to employ a person that acts against the best interests of the company at which he works. No right enumerated anywhere guarantees such a ridiculous idea, and I am glad for it.
When ESPN tries to regulate the freedom of speech of their employees outside of the scope of their employment (ie: on their free time) they are acting like the government.
How so? Can they throw you in jail? They might be able to sue you, but even then they'd probably have to prove some breach of contract, meaning it's something you specifically agreed to as part of your employment. So no, not like the government at all.
You're right, they're not the government and so they have no right to fire someone or to punish anyone for activities outside of the scope of their employment.
If it impacts their business, why not? If I post a load of derogatory statements about my company on Facebook, how do they not have the right to terminate my employment?
Free speech means you can freely express your speech without punishment.
By the government. If you walk into your boss's office and start screaming obscenities at him, can he fire you? If I invite you over to my house and you start screaming obscenities at me, can I tell you to leave and never come back? Free speech does not mean free from all consequences.
The goal of communication is to have your reader understand what you are saying. Small problems in grammar and spelling that do not impact this goal are not really worth pointing out.
If, however, your attempt at communication causes the reader's brain to stutter and reboot in protest of an incomprehensible sentence structure, then you have failed in your goal, and figuring out where you went wrong is pretty important.
On the post: Indiana County Decides Not To Charge Redbox After Public Outcry
Re: 17?
(And if not, and your young child is stealing your credit card and making a habit of walking to stores by himself to rent movies, perhaps you should question just what the hell kind of parent you are in the first place.)
On the post: Careful What You Redact: It May Say More Than What You Left In
Hmmm
On the post: Bill Introduced To Limit Early Termination Fees
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't See the Point
Verizon (the very company people are bitching about here) offers a monthly plan with no contract. (I'm month to month right now, in fact. I won't be in a week or so when I get them to subsidize a new Droid for me, but then I have no problem with the huge ETF . . .) Looking at the other major carriers' plans, they all allow you to choose a plan with no contract. T-Mobile's month-to-month is lower than their with-contract, in fact.
Also, in the future, before you accuse someone of dishonesty, make sure you've done your homework first. Thanks.
On the post: Bill Introduced To Limit Early Termination Fees
Re: Re: Re: Don't See the Point
Don't like Verizon's ETF? Don't sign with Verizon. Or buy the phone yourself and pay month-to-month.
(Curiously, despite your unsupported insistence that the mobile phone market is not a "free market", your solution seems to involve having the government dictate a "reasonable" ETF to the carriers, and we know that nothing makes a market more free than when the government determines prices by fiat, right?)
On the post: Bill Introduced To Limit Early Termination Fees
Re: Don't See the Point
I don't see the point of more legislation. If you don't like the terms of the contract . . . don't sign it?
On the post: Bill Introduced To Limit Early Termination Fees
Don't See the Point
On the post: Calling For An Independent Invention Defense In Patents
Re:
And the theory behind that, I would guess, is so people can start licensing the idea sooner rather than later. In practice (at least from the perspective of software patents), the current system makes it so easy to infringe accidentally that your best bet legally is to avoid looking at any patents at all (so you can't be accused of willful infringement later), keep your head down, and just hope you don't tread on someone else's monopoly when your product ships. Frustrating.
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re:
He won't have a job anymore, but he can do it.
If I interview you as a potential babysitter, and you tell me that you find children sexy, I'm not going to hire you. That doesn't mean you lack free speech. It means your free speech can have consequences for your relationships, both private and professional.
It's called "freedom".
You have the freedom to say what you want, and I have the freedom to associate with you, or not, at my discretion. Bill Simmons has the freedom to say what he wants about ESPN and its partners, and ESPN in turn has the freedom to associate with him, or not, at their discretion.
To advocate anything else is to say that some can have freedom, but others cannot. I'd rather keep the door firmly shut on that kind of policy, thank you very much.
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professional Unions & the 1st amendment
Sometimes, but in this case it's (A) common sense and (B) a fundamental understanding of the purpose of the constitution.
(A) Exercising your right to free speech can have consequences. Most people understand this. Do I have the right to call my wife a bitch? Yes. Can she refuse to speak to me, divorce me, or otherwise just make my marriage miserable? Yes. Shocking to hear that speech can have consequences, I know. "But wait, you say, work is different from your private life!" To which I reply, "Is it? If I call my wife a bitch while I'm on the clock, can she not get angry at me? Likewise, if I call my boss a prick when I'm not on the clock, can he not fire my ass?"
(B) Free speech protects you from the punishment from the government. Nothing more. Much like having freedom of the press does not guarantee that any newspaper will print any story you submit to them, free speech does not guarantee that other people will not take offense or otherwise censure you because of what you said.
If the government stops by your house to round you up for something you said, I'll be in the crowd of protesters supporting you 100% of the way. But if you whine about getting fired because you called your boss a prick to his face, you can expect me to be unmoved by your cries of "But it's free speeeech!".
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really suspended
Free speech means free from government punishments. ESPN (as a private entity) is free to impose any legal punishment in its belt, up to and including termination of employment. And no, executions by private parties aren't considered legal.
The silly part is, no one who thinks this is a free speech issue would ever apply the same criteria to their own private lives.
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: No
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: on his time
Fixed that for ya, because that's what it would be. And that's fine, really, as long as he doesn't whine later about the fact that he got fired.
"OMG I told my boss to stuff his rules up his ass and then he just fired me!! WTF! Free speech and shit, man!"
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re: Anyone heard of contractual obligation
I have a hard time seeing how ESPN can "regulate" my free speech, seeing as I don't work for them, nor have I signed any contract with them. The government, however . . .
at what level should you be allowed to have your free speech revoked?
Never. The government should never be able to revoke your free speech. If you sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement with a private entity, though, that's not a revocation of your free speech rights.
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really suspended
I.e. If you invite me over to your house, and I start screaming obscenities at you, do you have the right to kick me out, or does "free speech" compel you to let me stay?
The anonymous poster above seems to believe that all speech should be a free of all consequences from any source. Therefore, according to his logic, my screaming obscenities at you should not warrant the consequence of being removed from your private property.
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professional Unions & the 1st amendment
According to you. Luckily for all of us, your opinion isn't reality.
If I were the paid spokesperson for a non-profit organization dedicated to banning cigarettes, and my boss caught me lighting up on my porch one evening, I would be history. It doesn't matter that smoking is a legal activity or that I'm doing it on my own time at home. Likewise, if I posted to my blog about how great smoking was and how everyone should do it, I am likewise history. Doesn't matter that it was my own private blog or that I only posted on my own time.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You talk about rights, yet you demand that a company continue to employ a person that acts against the best interests of the company at which he works. No right enumerated anywhere guarantees such a ridiculous idea, and I am glad for it.
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really suspended
How so? Can they throw you in jail? They might be able to sue you, but even then they'd probably have to prove some breach of contract, meaning it's something you specifically agreed to as part of your employment. So no, not like the government at all.
You're right, they're not the government and so they have no right to fire someone or to punish anyone for activities outside of the scope of their employment.
If it impacts their business, why not? If I post a load of derogatory statements about my company on Facebook, how do they not have the right to terminate my employment?
Free speech means you can freely express your speech without punishment.
By the government. If you walk into your boss's office and start screaming obscenities at him, can he fire you? If I invite you over to my house and you start screaming obscenities at me, can I tell you to leave and never come back? Free speech does not mean free from all consequences.
On the post: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter
Re: Re: Not really suspended
If you post "My boss is a douchebag!!" to Facebook and he finds it, attempting to wrap yourself in the constitution for protection is a non-starter.
On the post: Grammar Nazis: Useful Language Experts, Or Elitist Snobs?
If, however, your attempt at communication causes the reader's brain to stutter and reboot in protest of an incomprehensible sentence structure, then you have failed in your goal, and figuring out where you went wrong is pretty important.
On the post: PRS's Latest Trick: Demanding Money From Shop Assistant Who Was Singing At Work
Hard to Believe
I'm not certain if I should be depressed that this is what society has been reduced to, or scared because I know we haven't hit rock bottom yet.
Next >>