I know! What next? People whining because their government is installing cameras all over their towns? I mean if you don't want to be filmed everywhere you're going by a Big Brother government JUST STOP GOING IN PUBLIC!!
Actually it's funny because the same people who would whine about the government doing nothing different than Google are flailing about because people are equally bothered by Google doing it.
You can go on and on all you like but the simple fact remains that there is absolutely zero case law in the US to back up any claims that malicious defamation is protected speech.
I never claimed that one couldn't be guilty of a bait-and-switch in absence of a contract. That was someone else. I was only pointing out that if you have no contract with the service provider that says they can't change the terms, they have no obligation to NOT change the terms of your service.
Where was such an ability ever guaranteed by AT&T? It certainly wasn't in any contract. Every service provider always has stipulations that one has to agree to that says they can change the terms of service at any point. If you don't agree to these changed terms you can cancel your service. But you can't whine after the fact when you accepted those terms already.
We are talking about constitutionally protected parody, not defamation.
Except nothing that these kids were doing constitutes a form of constitutionally-protected parody. Maybe you should actually educate yourself on the case law in this field?
Claiming that the principal is a pedophile and had sex with a student isn't "making fun" by any stretch of the imagination. That is a potentially career-ending accusation for the person.
Just because there is no "contract" requiring you to pay $X for Y service for Z months doesn't mean that there isn't a "contract" that you have the ability to choose from 3 plans (no data, limited data, or unlimited data) from month to month and you can change which option you pick each month with no penalty.
In what way was a contract established if you hadn't even bought the product?
And thus in the absence of a contract they had no legal obligations to maintain these terms. If you wanted a guarantee things maybe you should have had them written down in a legally binding document (aka a contract)?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, cause the best way to respond is to do something that is guaranteed to piss off the court and get yourself into a bigger mess.
No they aren't.
They're against being able to intercept all forms of communication such as cell phone calls? Since when?
None of which would have happened had Android not shown up.
Because Symbian (the one who holds 50% of the world-wide smartphone market) and BlackBerry OS didn't exist until Android showed up?
I know! What next? People whining because their government is installing cameras all over their towns? I mean if you don't want to be filmed everywhere you're going by a Big Brother government JUST STOP GOING IN PUBLIC!!
Actually it's funny because the same people who would whine about the government doing nothing different than Google are flailing about because people are equally bothered by Google doing it.
Authoritarian government around the world are nodding in agreement.
Because you're not a multinational corporation with $20+ billion in revenue and a whole division of lawyers?
This is a posting by theodp. He found a simple RESTful web API to be too complicated. You actually thought he would be able to understand binary?
Open source built and is running the internet.
Sure, as long as you ignore the vast amounts of proprietary switches, routers and other hardware that powers the Internet.
You can go on and on all you like but the simple fact remains that there is absolutely zero case law in the US to back up any claims that malicious defamation is protected speech.
Not to mention that the RAM and Flash among other pieces of the computer are all also most likely covered both patents and are proprietary.
There can still be bait and switch even if there's no contract.
I never made any such claim to the contrary. Maybe you are confusing me with this post?
I never claimed that one couldn't be guilty of a bait-and-switch in absence of a contract. That was someone else. I was only pointing out that if you have no contract with the service provider that says they can't change the terms, they have no obligation to NOT change the terms of your service.
Where was such an ability ever guaranteed by AT&T? It certainly wasn't in any contract. Every service provider always has stipulations that one has to agree to that says they can change the terms of service at any point. If you don't agree to these changed terms you can cancel your service. But you can't whine after the fact when you accepted those terms already.
Which also says that they can change the terms whenever they want. Basically you still fail.
We are talking about constitutionally protected parody, not defamation.
Except nothing that these kids were doing constitutes a form of constitutionally-protected parody. Maybe you should actually educate yourself on the case law in this field?
You don't have the right to maliciously defame a person which is what these kids were doing.
Claiming that the principal is a pedophile and had sex with a student isn't "making fun" by any stretch of the imagination. That is a potentially career-ending accusation for the person.
What ink?
What logical fallacy? Pointing out that his personal opinion doesn't necessarily hold for the rest of the world?
Apparently a ton of people disagree with you.
Unlimited has never really meant unlimited transfer amounts. It was also about having unlimited access.
Just because there is no "contract" requiring you to pay $X for Y service for Z months doesn't mean that there isn't a "contract" that you have the ability to choose from 3 plans (no data, limited data, or unlimited data) from month to month and you can change which option you pick each month with no penalty.
In what way was a contract established if you hadn't even bought the product?
AT&T advertised that you will have no contract
And thus in the absence of a contract they had no legal obligations to maintain these terms. If you wanted a guarantee things maybe you should have had them written down in a legally binding document (aka a contract)?
Oh it's well-known that AT&T's Android phones are some of the weakest out there.