I agree these calls are free speech. But put people on those phone lines. Then we'll see how badly those marketers want to reach consumers by paying the salaries. They will certainly be good "starter jobs".
"What in the hell does Medicare have to do with the First Amendment?"
If the PRICE you can charge for your product was relevant to the 1st Amendment, the AMA would have brought a huge constitutional challenge for all the doctors forced to undercharge their patients. And they would win, barring any of the usual government tom-foolery. But price has never been a component. If it was, the whole free market wouldn't exist as it does now. Correct me if I'm wrong but, didn't Citizens United establish that money was speech, however didn't specify an actual amount? The money itself is important to speech, but not the amount. Otherwise we would have limits in campaign funding.
"No, but it does imply that the government is not allowed to impose a penalty on protected speech based on the political content of that speech."
That aspect only goes so far. The government imposes all kinds of fees and penalties for being able to speak, or speaking out of turn. Money has never been part of the issue. (I concede there are exceptions.) In some states you need to pay for a state issued ID just to exercise your right to vote. That's a penalty. Permits to assemble... and the list goes on and on. Sure, people have their panties in a bunch because this happens to be a paper, but there is no right for that paper to make any money. That's up to them.
I don't see the clear First Amendment violation here.
No one is saying they can't participate in a boycott. No one is saying they can't sell papers.
They're only saying you have to give a discount. Any of you on Medicare already know the government does this on doctor fees charged to Medicare. If this is a violation, so is Medicare for dictating what can be charged by doctors. And as someone else already pointed out, the paper can jack up it's price and give everyone the discount, or give the paper away for free. (Unless the article is leaving something out.)
Freedom of speech bars the government from preventing publication of the paper. It does not imply that one should be paid [full price] for it, in any case.
But, a stupid law and likely unenforceable, nonetheless.
The main reason publishers hate piracy (the word gets out)
I have always been of the opinion that the real main goal of DRM was to DELAY potentially bad reviews via the piracy "preview". If game gets cracked and the game sucks, word is going to get around much faster, during the initial sales push (and kills those sales off). Have you ever noticed that it's the bad movies that push infringement the hardest, before the word gets out? Same principle in play here.
But game reviews on YouTube have made this tactic completely ineffective, so I wonder about the point nowadays. Now they're "doing what they always do" out of habit. Except Bethesda. They just over-hype in the pre-order phase, and sell buggy games that way.
My mom (rest her soul), would have loved this idea.
She was deathly afraid of screen burn in. She would raise the riot act, even if we paused to pee. (In spite of reassurances from her techno-son.)
Anything to keep motion on the screen was a good thing in her book. And there are other techno-illiterates still out there who are going to think the same.
Anyone from administrations BEFORE Hillary Clinton on up could have said, "Hey, if the rank and file employees have to use government accounts/servers for government business, so should I."
None of the higher ups did. The problem is obviously systematic, regardless of to whom you are currently pointing the blame finger. Be that the political system, technical system, the hoop-jumping system, or the ass kissing system in Washington.
No one in Washington cares. They haven't for a long time. They have been fighting FOIA since it was passed. Although in Mrs. Trump's case, it's just as likely to be idiocy, as anything else.
"allowing for this would kick off "widespread hacking" of all the DVDs on the planet"
Ripping DVDs has been standard for the masses for some time now. Talk about worrying about the barn door after the horse is not only gone, but has made many ponies.
"...they must have some other reason to arrest someone in order to get the ID they wanted in the first place. Otherwise it will get tossed, and the made up reason for arrest might also get tossed."
Agreed, but only after how much time and money is wasted by both the citizen and the government? The failings of the modern justice system, namely the perverse incentives for a quick guilty plea to get on with one's life, even in the face of innocence, make this point somewhat moot.
I just question how much usable stuff someone could get, that isn't already available via other means. I could imagine, that's how Trump sees it. I know the GPS would be a non issue. And I have never seen anything done on how much a mic picks up while pocketed.
There is also the other issue, how long it takes to upgrade things. I seem to remember Obama using an outdated Blackberry, because they couldn't "secure" an Android or iPhone. Trump would see having to wait, as ridiculous. I would agree with him on that.
Serious problem? I don't see it from a practical standpoint (for any president). The President goes from the White House, to Marine One, to Air force One, to the presidential limo, rinse and repeat. Any one of those vehicles has a secure link. And we are worried about the chance he might use a cellphone for a fleeting moment in-between? Methinks they are more worried about his ability to tweet in general, not so much the security level of said tweet. What secret could he give away in a 30 second walk, that he doesn't give to the press already, just to show he can?
Re: Re: The easiest solution is not a technical one
As an additional note, I can see where a city might say that an app has made congestion worse. But it's all about perception for those side streets, not even close to an actual analysis of overall traffic flow, pre and post app. By their very function, nav apps distribute traffic more evenly over more routes to achieve the best travel times. That being the case, streets once not traveled so often fill up a bit, and [in theory] the traffic on the main through-ways is lessened. But of course, not everybody is using the apps to get around, so there's that.
Seems to me, the easiest solution is for the city to make Baxter Street one way going uphill. Drivers won't have to deal with gravity to maintain control. The apps will update themselves with the change.
But had one of the other officers already issued an order to disarm? That is the piece we don't know. I find it unlikely that those officers trying to deescalate the situation, would not have said, 'put the knife down' as a first step.
The fact that Kisela did not repeat a command already given, is something the court would be willing to overlook.
I see the exception, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;". That seems clear. Police are a civilian militia.
I agree that the present environment as a result of other cases is not a good one. But we can't allow that to influence an individual ruling, just because it happens to give legal ammunition to the other side. That would be implying that the one side is always wrong.
On the post: John Oliver Robocalls Ajit Pai For Not Doing More To Thwart Robocalls
Re: God News
I agree these calls are free speech. But put people on those phone lines. Then we'll see how badly those marketers want to reach consumers by paying the salaries. They will certainly be good "starter jobs".
On the post: Federal Judge Says Boycotts Aren't Protected Speech
Re: Re: What are they preventing exactly?
"What in the hell does Medicare have to do with the First Amendment?"
If the PRICE you can charge for your product was relevant to the 1st Amendment, the AMA would have brought a huge constitutional challenge for all the doctors forced to undercharge their patients. And they would win, barring any of the usual government tom-foolery. But price has never been a component. If it was, the whole free market wouldn't exist as it does now. Correct me if I'm wrong but, didn't Citizens United establish that money was speech, however didn't specify an actual amount? The money itself is important to speech, but not the amount. Otherwise we would have limits in campaign funding.
"No, but it does imply that the government is not allowed to impose a penalty on protected speech based on the political content of that speech."
That aspect only goes so far. The government imposes all kinds of fees and penalties for being able to speak, or speaking out of turn. Money has never been part of the issue. (I concede there are exceptions.) In some states you need to pay for a state issued ID just to exercise your right to vote. That's a penalty. Permits to assemble... and the list goes on and on. Sure, people have their panties in a bunch because this happens to be a paper, but there is no right for that paper to make any money. That's up to them.
On the post: Federal Judge Says Boycotts Aren't Protected Speech
What are they preventing exactly?
No one is saying they can't participate in a boycott.
No one is saying they can't sell papers.
They're only saying you have to give a discount. Any of you on Medicare already know the government does this on doctor fees charged to Medicare. If this is a violation, so is Medicare for dictating what can be charged by doctors. And as someone else already pointed out, the paper can jack up it's price and give everyone the discount, or give the paper away for free. (Unless the article is leaving something out.)
Freedom of speech bars the government from preventing publication of the paper. It does not imply that one should be paid [full price] for it, in any case.
But, a stupid law and likely unenforceable, nonetheless.
On the post: Denuvo-Protected Just Cause 4 Cracked In A Day, Suffering From Shitty Reviews
The main reason publishers hate piracy (the word gets out)
But game reviews on YouTube have made this tactic completely ineffective, so I wonder about the point nowadays.
Now they're "doing what they always do" out of habit. Except Bethesda. They just over-hype in the pre-order phase, and sell buggy games that way.
On the post: The TV Sector's Latest Bad Idea: Ads That Play When You Press Pause
Some will like this...
She was deathly afraid of screen burn in. She would raise the riot act, even if we paused to pee. (In spite of reassurances from her techno-son.)
Anything to keep motion on the screen was a good thing in her book. And there are other techno-illiterates still out there who are going to think the same.
On the post: But Her Emails: Ivanka Trump Also Used A Private Email Account For Official Government Business
What's really sad...
None of the higher ups did. The problem is obviously systematic, regardless of to whom you are currently pointing the blame finger. Be that the political system, technical system, the hoop-jumping system, or the ass kissing system in Washington.
No one in Washington cares. They haven't for a long time. They have been fighting FOIA since it was passed. Although in Mrs. Trump's case, it's just as likely to be idiocy, as anything else.
On the post: Charter Spectrum's CEO Continues To Whine About Streaming Password Sharing
How can he not know?
That's been the business model since the invention of TV. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees.
On the post: Copyright Office Extends Anti-Circumvention DMCA Exemptions To All Filmmakers, Not Just Documentarians
Always 10+ years too late
Ripping DVDs has been standard for the masses for some time now. Talk about worrying about the barn door after the horse is not only gone, but has made many ponies.
On the post: Texas Teens Can't Graduate High School Until They've Been Told How To Behave Around Cops
Re: Re:
Agreed, but only after how much time and money is wasted by both the citizen and the government? The failings of the modern justice system, namely the perverse incentives for a quick guilty plea to get on with one's life, even in the face of innocence, make this point somewhat moot.
On the post: Facebook Tells Cops Its 'Real Name' Policy Applies To Law Enforcement Too
Doesn't the CFAA come into play?
Can someone explain? (Other then people with power can skirt the law. I already know that.)
On the post: Court Says It's Unconstitutional For Trump To Block People On Twitter, But Doesn't Actually Order Him To Stop
FOIA vs. CFAA
On the post: President Trump Thinks Basic Phone Security Is Simply Too Inconvenient
Re: Re: Mountain or molehill?
There is also the other issue, how long it takes to upgrade things. I seem to remember Obama using an outdated Blackberry, because they couldn't "secure" an Android or iPhone. Trump would see having to wait, as ridiculous. I would agree with him on that.
On the post: President Trump Thinks Basic Phone Security Is Simply Too Inconvenient
Re: Re: Mountain or molehill?
On the post: President Trump Thinks Basic Phone Security Is Simply Too Inconvenient
Mountain or molehill?
On the post: L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems
Re: Re: The easiest solution is not a technical one
On the post: L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems
The easiest solution is not a technical one
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Shoot first, issue commands... eh, eventually
The fact that Kisela did not repeat a command already given, is something the court would be willing to overlook.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not my usual stance, in this case.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Non established rights
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: With friends like these...
I agree that the present environment as a result of other cases is not a good one. But we can't allow that to influence an individual ruling, just because it happens to give legal ammunition to the other side. That would be implying that the one side is always wrong.
Next >>