Yes, in fact, a juror could do exactly what you said. It's called "Jury Nullification." It just causes a hung jury, then a mistrial, and then a new trial.
Advertising most definitely IS speech, and is only restricted by FTC rules.
Spam is advertising. Spam is Speech. Censoring spam is censoring speech.
If someone hawks goods in MY space, then it is assumed, however incorrectly, that it is being done with MY approval. That's why stores are allowed to post signs to the gist of "No Bills, No Soliciting, etc.".
Depending on the state you are in (about half), "public areas" of a private mall are considered public enough that the mall can't stop a protest, pamphlet handout, petition signing, etc.
Re: For people who obsess about cultural appropriation...
Yes, in this specific case.
Because this is the first time I've seen something called "cultural appropriation" that actually resembles real appropriation. That is, they are trying claim exclusive ownership over the phrase.
Usually it's just someone being insensitive, even disrespectful. And that's bad. But it's not making your culture actually any less available to you.
Re: Internet sites have every right in the world to kick people off
There is a very narrow set of protected classes, and you probably know that there is, seeing as you jumped on the first one.
For the sake of argument, here they are:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
Genetic information.
Citizenship.
This list isn't true for everything, and you have to prove that the reason you were refused service was for being one of the protected classes.
So, if someone can prove the internet site banned them for being black, and not just an asshole, then NO, they can't be banned. Just like a restaurant can't refuse service for being white, but they can kick you out for being disruptive.
No, thus this whole issue. South Dakota residents are refusing to pay their use tax, so South Dakota decided the burden should be passed to the people who DON'T live in the state.
Now see here, the USPTO has well established that "On The Internet" is a valid difference when doing things that have been done for at least a century.
I was pretty clear about "don't like how he has handled anything to do with immigration."
ANYTHING.
Better immigration policy and enforcement is a laudable goal. However, Trump heard "goal" and decided it was a game, and he wants to score, no matter the human cost.
There is an option aside from "let them all in" and "literal cages for children." And, frankly, it's what we were doing before Trump saw Obama's name associated with it.
Well, no. Honestly, Obama's "jail-em-all" policy was pretty bad, too. Definitely better than the Children's Pound that's going on now, though.
On the post: Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires
Re: Pigs...
Yes, that is exactly what is being said.
Everyone is equal, but the emergency services that keep people alive are more important than your cat videos.
What's the problem?
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's fucking terrible!
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
It's fucking terrible!
Please, save yourself! Leave! Go far, _far_ away, before you get sucked in, too!
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spam is advertising. Spam is Speech. Censoring spam is censoring speech.
If someone hawks goods in MY space, then it is assumed, however incorrectly, that it is being done with MY approval. That's why stores are allowed to post signs to the gist of "No Bills, No Soliciting, etc.".
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re:
No Doom, but they did release a Special Edition of Skyrim on it.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pruneyard Shopping Center V. Robins.
Depending on the state you are in (about half), "public areas" of a private mall are considered public enough that the mall can't stop a protest, pamphlet handout, petition signing, etc.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
NO SUCH THING AS A MORAL THRESHOLD
Seriously, it's that easy.
There is no monopoly, the whole internet is out there, on whatever device you want.
Shoot, with the most trivial of programming skills, you can even use your thermostat.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Moral View...
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the Internet is the mall, and Twitter is just a store.
Like the mall, anyone on the internet can say what they want, open their own store, or even have a gathering in one of the thoroughfares.
However: Twitter, like a store, can tell you to get the FUCK off their property.
Go to a different store- one that agrees with what you say, or open your own.
The halls are free, too, but in my place of business, I don't have to listen to you.
On the post: Getting Worse: The Office Of Hawaiian Affairs Jumps Into The Aloha Poke Situation As Chicago Chain Stonewalls
Re: For people who obsess about cultural appropriation...
Yes, in this specific case.
Because this is the first time I've seen something called "cultural appropriation" that actually resembles real appropriation. That is, they are trying claim exclusive ownership over the phrase.
Usually it's just someone being insensitive, even disrespectful. And that's bad. But it's not making your culture actually any less available to you.
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: Internet sites have every right in the world to kick people off
There is a very narrow set of protected classes, and you probably know that there is, seeing as you jumped on the first one.
For the sake of argument, here they are: Race. Color. Religion or creed. National origin or ancestry. Sex. Age. Physical or mental disability. Veteran status. Genetic information. Citizenship.
This list isn't true for everything, and you have to prove that the reason you were refused service was for being one of the protected classes.
So, if someone can prove the internet site banned them for being black, and not just an asshole, then NO, they can't be banned. Just like a restaurant can't refuse service for being white, but they can kick you out for being disruptive.
On the post: Don't Believe Those Who Wish To Diminish Digital Rights By Falsely Implying It's All Big Tech Lobbying
Re: Re: Re:
He's competing with other artists for the commissioning of new works. Honestly, even under the current corrupt system, that's how it's done:
An author creates a work, then self-publishes.
He sends copies to as many publishers as possible.
A publisher picks them up.
They are given an "advance" for a new work - AKA, the only money they will likely ever see for their art.
Publisher makes a fortune, all while refusing to give another cent to the author via "Hollywood Accounting".
Obviously, the pirates did it.
On the post: The Supreme Court Makes A Federal Case Out Of South Dakota's Inability To Collect Taxes From Its Residents And Thus A Big Mess
Re: Re: Re:
Choosing not to change the rules was Congress weighing in.
On the post: The Supreme Court Makes A Federal Case Out Of South Dakota's Inability To Collect Taxes From Its Residents And Thus A Big Mess
Re: Re: Enforcement
On the post: The Supreme Court Makes A Federal Case Out Of South Dakota's Inability To Collect Taxes From Its Residents And Thus A Big Mess
Re: Sears Catalogue
Who is the Supreme Court to disagree?
On the post: Artist Files Completely Frivolous Copyright Lawsuit Against The NRA For Briefly Showing Public Sculpture In Stupid Video
Re: Re: OMG! Mentioned NRA! Next you'll claim support it AND copyright!
As we all know, there is only one Mike on the internet.
On the post: President Trump Directs Pentagon To Create A 'Space Force' In What Is Surely Not Any Kind Of Distraction From Crying Children
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was pretty clear about "don't like how he has handled anything to do with immigration."
ANYTHING.
Better immigration policy and enforcement is a laudable goal. However, Trump heard "goal" and decided it was a game, and he wants to score, no matter the human cost.
On the post: President Trump Directs Pentagon To Create A 'Space Force' In What Is Surely Not Any Kind Of Distraction From Crying Children
Re: Re:
There is an option aside from "let them all in" and "literal cages for children." And, frankly, it's what we were doing before Trump saw Obama's name associated with it.
Well, no. Honestly, Obama's "jail-em-all" policy was pretty bad, too. Definitely better than the Children's Pound that's going on now, though.
Next >>