There are no free speech concerns here. This isn't the government going after Gawker. Gawker is (relatively) free to publish whatever it likes. However, along with the freedom to publish what it likes it must also accept responsibility, liability in this case, for what it publishes.
Politicians won't want to open things like this up to public visibility because then we'd all see how the beef is made. Right now it is hidden in the slaughterhouse.
Of course... the only correct answer to a LEO asking to search your belongings is "if you have a warrant". I understand why he didn't refuse though, it's inconceivable to most people that the DEA can just seize property like they did.
Why would you make data caps illegal? Why not let different businesses offer different plans to match up with different customer profiles? Those who are OK with data caps can purchase plans with them, those who do not can purchase uncapped plans.
There's no incentive to clean this up (pun intended) because in gov't there's ultimately no cost for being wasteful; it's not like the EPA or any gov't agency will have his/her budget reduced because of this or any wasteful spending.
And guess what, all the Net Neutrality laws in the world won't fix this. Abolishing franchise and right-of-way agreements would fix the NN issue and the terrible customer service issue.
So I ask NN supporters again... why aren't you fighting to kill 2 birds with a more effective stone?
Precisely; in which case it would seem to make more sense for NN supporters to put their energies behind the removal of gov't monopoly support which would be more likely to kill two birds as opposed to fight for NN which will likely have unintended consequences.
I have the distinct displeasure of having this particular Senator as a representative. He is a complete nincompoop about almost ever matter that comes across his desk.
Of all the matters, ones pertaining to economics and technology routinely leave him befuddled.
have already found to to be immoral and we have made laws against them.
I'll admit my use of the word "rape" was hyperbole, but certainly taxation and asset forfeiture are easy and clear examples of theft, and, as we've found out from Dr. Jonathan Gruber (which many had warned prior), ObamaCare was fraudulently sold to the American people. If we have laws against theft and fraud how are the prisons not full of politicians?
Morals are subjective and mine are different than yours. The debate over morals will not be ended here, however even if you use the rules we currently have as a basis for morality we suffer from serious cognitive dissonance -- theft is wrong at the individual level, for example, but not at the governmental level.
if individual rights are placed above the good of society as a whole But society is nothing but a collection of individuals; it isn't a thing that can benefit. Which means we're back to the beginning in that what you're really arguing is that it's OK to violate the rights of a smaller quantity of people so long as a larger quantity of people benefit from said violation.
You do not have the right to defame another person
Many laws exist which haven't been Constitutionally challenged. I believe defamation laws are one of them. Your reputation is what others think of you. Since you don't have a right to the thoughts of others or to force others to think a certain way about you, you don't have the right to tell someone how to speak of you. Therefore defamation laws clearly violate the right to free speech.
On the post: Gawker Files For Bankruptcy, Begins Process Of Auctioning Itself Off
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
On the post: Gawker Files For Bankruptcy, Begins Process Of Auctioning Itself Off
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
On the post: Gawker Files For Bankruptcy, Begins Process Of Auctioning Itself Off
Re: Sigh
On the post: CIA Refuses To Release Osama's Porn Collection Information To Bro Who Submitted FOIA For It
On the post: Congressional Rep Makes A Pull Request On GitHub, Which Is Then Merged By US Gov't CIO
On the post: Border Patrol Agents Tase Woman For Refusing To Cooperate With Their Bogus Search
Re:
Yeah, sounds about right.
On the post: DEA Takes $16,000 From Train Passenger Because It Can
Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
On the post: FCC Net Neutrality Rules Finally Released, Cue The ISP Lawsuits And Hyperbole
Re:
The only problem with that position is the track record of bureaucratic incompetence that exists at nearly every level of gov't.
On the post: Sorry: AT&T & Verizon Can't Upgrade Or Repair Your Aging DSL Line Because Parts Are Too Hard To Find
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sorry: AT&T & Verizon Can't Upgrade Or Repair Your Aging DSL Line Because Parts Are Too Hard To Find
Re: Re:
On the post: Sorry: AT&T & Verizon Can't Upgrade Or Repair Your Aging DSL Line Because Parts Are Too Hard To Find
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sorry: AT&T & Verizon Can't Upgrade Or Repair Your Aging DSL Line Because Parts Are Too Hard To Find
Don't you see techdirt, this is why focusing on NN is misguided -- it won't fix the true underlying issue.
On the post: Sorry: AT&T & Verizon Can't Upgrade Or Repair Your Aging DSL Line Because Parts Are Too Hard To Find
Re:
On the post: Bill Introduced To Keep Bored Federal Employees From Viewing Porn While On The Clock
On the post: Comcast's Former Twitter Chief Says Dismal Support Won't Get Fixed Until Comcast Stops Being A Cheapskate
So I ask NN supporters again... why aren't you fighting to kill 2 birds with a more effective stone?
On the post: Yet Another Horrible Comcast Customer Service Experience Goes Viral
Re: Re:
On the post: Yet Another Horrible Comcast Customer Service Experience Goes Viral
Re:
On the post: Yet Another Horrible Comcast Customer Service Experience Goes Viral
On the post: Senator Whitehouse Is Very Angry About A Made Up Google Search And A Made Up Pirate Bay
Of all the matters, ones pertaining to economics and technology routinely leave him befuddled.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll admit my use of the word "rape" was hyperbole, but certainly taxation and asset forfeiture are easy and clear examples of theft, and, as we've found out from Dr. Jonathan Gruber (which many had warned prior), ObamaCare was fraudulently sold to the American people. If we have laws against theft and fraud how are the prisons not full of politicians?
Morals are subjective and mine are different than yours.
The debate over morals will not be ended here, however even if you use the rules we currently have as a basis for morality we suffer from serious cognitive dissonance -- theft is wrong at the individual level, for example, but not at the governmental level.
if individual rights are placed above the good of society as a whole
But society is nothing but a collection of individuals; it isn't a thing that can benefit. Which means we're back to the beginning in that what you're really arguing is that it's OK to violate the rights of a smaller quantity of people so long as a larger quantity of people benefit from said violation.
You do not have the right to defame another person
Many laws exist which haven't been Constitutionally challenged. I believe defamation laws are one of them. Your reputation is what others think of you. Since you don't have a right to the thoughts of others or to force others to think a certain way about you, you don't have the right to tell someone how to speak of you. Therefore defamation laws clearly violate the right to free speech.
Next >>