I guess I can't necessarily blame the government for arguing, presumably with a straight face, that physical body searches are less intrusive than administrative paperwork.
After all, their own boss is setting the culture that the release of tax records is more personally offensive than "pussy grabbing."
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H. L. Mencken
I think you're misunderstanding what I (attempted to) say. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been (it happens often, unfortunately).
Let me re-phrase: Private companies are not "bound by" the first amendment in the same way government is. This is indisputable.
The downside to phrasing it this way is that people will selectively read this to understand that companies and the first amendment have nothing to do with one another, when in actuality, companies are protected by the first amendment in the same way citizens are. "Congress shall make no law", indeed. The pro-regulation people are calling for exactly such an unconstitutional law. By disconnecting companies and the 1A protections they enjoy, it makes this hypocrisy less clear.
I think it's important to reinforce the message that people who are whining the loudest about "censorship" are the very same people who are proposing the censorship of corporate speech!
Hopefully that was more clear? This is why I don't write professionally. :)
the First Amendment (which they, as private companies, are not bound by)
I understand what you're saying, but I think this is the wrong way to frame it. The First Amendment absolutely applies to private companies, just in the other direction than the pro-regulation crowd is wanting. (The difference is between "bound by" and "applies to," but I think it's important to hammer home the fact that support of private moderation is a protection of the 1A rather than a violation.)
The freedom that companies enjoy to speak their own minds have resulted in the Citizens United case that the right has traditionally defended vigorously. It takes some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.
"Southwestern Community College is excited to announce that we have reorganized as a newspaper, though we 'regret' to inform you that all our records are now private. Don't bother asking how this is going to work, that's private, too."
I just created a database that my friends and family can use to write quick updates, and see each other's updates. It's stored in the cloud, so it can be accessed from anywhere. I named it Social Network.
Also without reading it, I'm going to guess it says something to the effect of "Adobe reserves the right to update or change the terms of this license with or without notice."
You pay, we get to make all the rules, and the only thing you can do is stop paying (assuming you aren't under contract).
Call me cynical, but I think there's another angle, here.
The EU has simply gotten drunk off of literal monopoly money. They've fined Microsoft, twice, totaling over 1.4b euros. Google has been hit three times for 8.2b euros, all over anti-trust concerns. Throw in fines to Facebook and others, and they've gotten judgements of over 10 BILLION euros outside of normal taxation. Sure, taxes a whole other fustercluck, but suffice to say their payments, whatever they are or aren't, are legal. It's easier to blame the American companies than to lobby the Irish and Dutch governments to fully close their tax loopholes.
Now that those cases are settled, what better way to continue to siphon funds from American internet companies than create unrealistic demands and charge penance every time they fail to bend space and time?
This is a symptom of the 21st century news. The lines have been blurred so thoroughly between news and entertainment that the higher-ups at news organizations see themselves as no different than record producers or film directors.
This is also what's driving the renewed push for the Hot News doctrine. Anything pushed out by news organizations is getting so highly processed that it has just as much "artistic input" (in the minds of the producers) as any piece of multi-media art deserving of more strict copyright protections.
News organizations are increasingly in the entertainment business, so demanding more rights at the expense of their consumers is really no shock.
I suspect there are a fair number of people who pay for accounts who do not consume enough content to make the purchase worthwhile on their own. It's only because they are allowed to share the account that the service becomes a viable purchase.
A crackdown on such accounts might well lose a significant number of subscribers.
e.g. Unrelated roommates (or a parent/child living apart, whatever) all use the same account, but each only watch 1-2 films/shows per month. Neither would pay the $12 alone, but it's worth it for half that amount, so they split the cost. Netflix cracks down, so they cancel altogether rather than pay double for the same service that each individual person barely uses.
Seriously. If anybody has a spare industrial shredder, I've got a business proposal for you. You can have that thing running 24/7 for the next week by taking it city to city in California.
On the post: Third Circuit Says TSA Officers Can Be Sued Directly For Abuses And Rights Violations
I guess I can't necessarily blame the government for arguing, presumably with a straight face, that physical body searches are less intrusive than administrative paperwork.
After all, their own boss is setting the culture that the release of tax records is more personally offensive than "pussy grabbing."
On the post: Guy Sues Facebook For Violating Basically All The Laws, For Shutting Down His Account And For Everything Else Bad Facebook Has Ever Done
This raises many questions, but the most interesting one is, how long is it going to take before Robert Zimmerman goes full Thomas Goolnik?
On the post: Gutting Section 230 Will Harm The Most Marginalized
Re: Well, yeah...
On the post: Company Sues Blackhat Because People Mocked Their Sponsored Presentation And Called It Snake Oil
Going to argue in court that their attempted bribe didn't work....bold strategy, Cotton.
On the post: For All Of Trump's Complaints About Social Media 'Censorship', The White House Itself Moderates Content Similarly To Social Media Sites
Re: Re:
I think you're misunderstanding what I (attempted to) say. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been (it happens often, unfortunately).
Let me re-phrase: Private companies are not "bound by" the first amendment in the same way government is. This is indisputable.
The downside to phrasing it this way is that people will selectively read this to understand that companies and the first amendment have nothing to do with one another, when in actuality, companies are protected by the first amendment in the same way citizens are. "Congress shall make no law", indeed. The pro-regulation people are calling for exactly such an unconstitutional law. By disconnecting companies and the 1A protections they enjoy, it makes this hypocrisy less clear.
I think it's important to reinforce the message that people who are whining the loudest about "censorship" are the very same people who are proposing the censorship of corporate speech!
Hopefully that was more clear? This is why I don't write professionally. :)
On the post: For All Of Trump's Complaints About Social Media 'Censorship', The White House Itself Moderates Content Similarly To Social Media Sites
I understand what you're saying, but I think this is the wrong way to frame it. The First Amendment absolutely applies to private companies, just in the other direction than the pro-regulation crowd is wanting. (The difference is between "bound by" and "applies to," but I think it's important to hammer home the fact that support of private moderation is a protection of the 1A rather than a violation.)
The freedom that companies enjoy to speak their own minds have resulted in the Citizens United case that the right has traditionally defended vigorously. It takes some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to try to have it both ways.
On the post: College Forgets How The First Amendment Works; Targets Its Own Student Newspaper With A Public Records Request
Next Month
"Southwestern Community College is excited to announce that we have reorganized as a newspaper, though we 'regret' to inform you that all our records are now private. Don't bother asking how this is going to work, that's private, too."
On the post: Google Stadia Is About To Show Everyone Why Broadband Usage Caps Are Bullshit
Re:
10 Google half-asses a new service
20 Few people use it
30 Google cancels the service that few people were using
40 goto 10
On the post: Court: Planning To Get A Warrant Is As Good As Actually Having A Warrant When Searching A House
Re: So, dead child in sight, would need a warrant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance
On the post: Court: Planning To Get A Warrant Is As Good As Actually Having A Warrant When Searching A House
Re:
Nope. As always, you have to follow the letter of the law, while the government only has to do what they think the law should be.
See also: https://www.techdirt.com/search.php?tid=Legal%20Issues&search=Search
On the post: Laying Out All The Evidence: Shiva Ayyadurai Did Not Invent Email
I just created a database that my friends and family can use to write quick updates, and see each other's updates. It's stored in the cloud, so it can be accessed from anywhere. I named it Social Network.
I INVENTED THE IDEA OF SOCIAL NETWORKS!
On the post: Adobe Warns Users Someone Else Might Sue Them For Using Old Versions Of Photoshop
Re:
Also without reading it, I'm going to guess it says something to the effect of "Adobe reserves the right to update or change the terms of this license with or without notice."
You pay, we get to make all the rules, and the only thing you can do is stop paying (assuming you aren't under contract).
On the post: EU Parliament Votes To Require Internet Sites To Delete 'Terrorist Content' In One Hour (By 3 Votes)
Call me cynical, but I think there's another angle, here.
The EU has simply gotten drunk off of literal monopoly money. They've fined Microsoft, twice, totaling over 1.4b euros. Google has been hit three times for 8.2b euros, all over anti-trust concerns. Throw in fines to Facebook and others, and they've gotten judgements of over 10 BILLION euros outside of normal taxation. Sure, taxes a whole other fustercluck, but suffice to say their payments, whatever they are or aren't, are legal. It's easier to blame the American companies than to lobby the Irish and Dutch governments to fully close their tax loopholes.
Now that those cases are settled, what better way to continue to siphon funds from American internet companies than create unrealistic demands and charge penance every time they fail to bend space and time?
This isn't about terrorism, it's about money.
On the post: News Organization Like Reuters Supporting The EU Copyright Directive Is A Shameful Support For Censorship
This is a symptom of the 21st century news. The lines have been blurred so thoroughly between news and entertainment that the higher-ups at news organizations see themselves as no different than record producers or film directors.
This is also what's driving the renewed push for the Hot News doctrine. Anything pushed out by news organizations is getting so highly processed that it has just as much "artistic input" (in the minds of the producers) as any piece of multi-media art deserving of more strict copyright protections.
News organizations are increasingly in the entertainment business, so demanding more rights at the expense of their consumers is really no shock.
On the post: It Sure Sounds Like Elizabeth Warren Wants To Bring The EU Copyright Directive Stateside
Re: Comments censored within 10 minutes. -- And by WHOM?
[citation needed]
On the post: It Sure Sounds Like Elizabeth Warren Wants To Bring The EU Copyright Directive Stateside
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
On the post: Once Again, Sharing Streaming Passwords Is Not 'Piracy' Or 'Freeloading'
Re:
I suspect there are a fair number of people who pay for accounts who do not consume enough content to make the purchase worthwhile on their own. It's only because they are allowed to share the account that the service becomes a viable purchase.
A crackdown on such accounts might well lose a significant number of subscribers.
e.g. Unrelated roommates (or a parent/child living apart, whatever) all use the same account, but each only watch 1-2 films/shows per month. Neither would pay the $12 alone, but it's worth it for half that amount, so they split the cost. Netflix cracks down, so they cancel altogether rather than pay double for the same service that each individual person barely uses.
On the post: Another California Court Rules Against Law Enforcement Secrecy, Says Agencies Must Release Old Misconduct Files
Re: Bad Apples
"One bad apple is no big deal?" No, that's not it.
"One bad apple ruins the whole bunch?" Close, but doesn't quite capture this situation.
"A few bad apples infected law enforcement decades ago and nobody did anything, so the whole system is corrupt by now?" There it is.
On the post: Another California Court Rules Against Law Enforcement Secrecy, Says Agencies Must Release Old Misconduct Files
Re: 'Records? What records?'
Seriously. If anybody has a spare industrial shredder, I've got a business proposal for you. You can have that thing running 24/7 for the next week by taking it city to city in California.
On the post: FBI's Internal Investigations Of Shootings By Agents Clears Agents 98% Of The Time
"Nope, nobody did anything wrong here. Guns just do that sometimes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
Next >>