>>>You mean the same contract that one party can modify the terms of at any time?
And which you can terminate when that happens, without penalty. If for example you ISP changed from "unlimited" to "5 gigabytes" you can immediately terminate your relationship with that company. You are not bound to stay. .
>>>I agree they are not a monopoly, BUT, getting into this business is not a simple as you seem to believe
Starting any business is never simple, but I'm sure if someone like Bill Gates or Donald Trump decided, "I can make a lot of money in wireless," they'd go ahead and do it. The fact that they CAN do it means the market is open. Look at google. At one time in the 1990s people would have said, "Trying to unseat Yahoo is nuts - nobody can do that." And along came upstart google. .
>>>I agree they are not a monopoly,
I agree we agree. QED there's no need for government to impose net neutrality on Wireless ISPs. Government should only interfere when there's a monopoly (like the electric company or water company). .
>>>You named 7 competitors, of which I've heard of 3. I don't consider that a healthy market.
You've probably never heard of Mussers, Darrenkamps, Weis, Turkey Hill, Fergusons, or Amelias either. That doesn't mean my local community doesn't have a "healthy market" within the grocery store sector. Likewise if you've not heard of Boost, Net 10, Cricket, or Clear, so what? It still doesn't change the fact I have ~10 choices overall. My market is very competitive.
A politician doesn't need to convince you. He needs to convince the other ~50 idiots (or ignorants) you live next door to.
Lying and promising impossible goals will be sufficient for that task. Reminds me of an interview from last year with a typical voter: "I came hear today because I heard the government was handing-out $1000 stimulus checks." Reporter: "Interesting. Where does the government get that money?" "Uh, I don't know. I really don't know. But wherever they got the money, I'm glad. The government is taking care of us." ----- These people are totally clueless. A politician could promise "free 1 terabit internet for everyone!" and the voters would say, "Yeah that's the man I'm voting for."
BTW:
Tony Abbott is correct: 1 gigabit is pie-in-the-sky. The world's fastest country is South Korea, and they still only average 0.03 Gbit/s. Japan averages just under 0.02 Gbit/s. A politician promising to take all of Australia to 1.0 Gbit/s is not reality - it's fantasy. Hmmmm. Maybe they think they can hire that fantasy character Geordi LaForge and adjust the gravitational constant of the Aussie space-time bubble and "presto" the 1.0 Gbit/s will appear.
>>>Even now, they continue to offer 'unlimited access' with restrictions in small print.
Which is perfectly legal. It is the citizen's responsibility to read every word prior to signing a contract. If you think small print should be outlawed then talk to your Congressman and ask for the law to be updated. .
>>>Were they not allowed to take unlimited numbers of customers
This would be a Tyranny instead of Liberty. I should be free to run my internet service however I see fit - a few customers or as many as I can get. I am a free, liberated citizen. So long as I don't kill or physically abuse anyone, no harm and no foul. .
>>>The very idea of Net Neutrality would force competition
With wireless I can pick Verizon, ATT, Sprint, Boost, Net 10, Cricket, Clear, or..... That's a very competitive market, and there's no need for the government to impose net neutrality, because a monopoly does not exist. Instead let the People regulate the wireless companies through their buying choices. i.e. If ATT sucks then switch to one of the other many providers until you found one that's fully open to the internet.
Question: Who owns the celltowers? If this is a monopoly then the FCC will need to regulate that - which of course they already do.
The last time I read a story like this, the human was taking immuno-suppressant drugs which allowed the plant to grow without being attacked & killed by white blood cells.
The company that a friend of mine joined is upfront. You get 5 gigabytes high speed, after which point the service is throttled. They telecoms are not misleading customers.
And for people who signed-up during the "unlimited" days, your contract states they can change to "limited" anytime they desire. When that happens you have the right to terminate the contract without penalty.
>>>my wired choices are, um, Comcast. With wireless I can pick Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Boost, Net 10, or about a dozen more.
Precisely.
That's a competitive market and there's no need for the government to impose net neutrality. I agree with Google. Let the People regulate the wireless companies through their buying choices. i.e. If ATT sucks then switch to one of the other many providers until you found one that's fully open to the internet.
Question: Who owns the celltowers? If this is a monopoly then the FCC will need to regulate that - which of course they already do.
>>>I have 4 wireless options (ATT, TMobile, Verizon, Sprint). With Wired I have DSL, Satellite, Cable, and DialUp
The Satellite and Phoneline dialup aren't real options. The first one is ridiculously expensive (~$50/month for speeds no faster than $15 DSL), and the second is dirt cheap but too slow to watch streaming videos. So that only leaves 2 wired options, and in some places just 1 wired option (either cable or dsl).
In my area the wireless providers include ATT, Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, Cricket, VirginMobile, Clear, and probably 1 or 2 others I'm not aware of. That's a competitive market and there's no need for the government to regulate wireless. I agree with Google.
>>>You can pick amongst half a dozen wireless providers who all somehow have the exact same pricing scheme
(cues up Penn & Teller tape) - "That's bullshit!" (puts tape away). They are not all the "exact same" price. They are similar in cost because the price has been pushed as low as it can go..... this is no different than how a frozen Healthy Choice meal costs about $2 whether I shop at Wal-Mart or 7-11 or Greens or Acme. That doesn't mean the grocery stores are colluding; it means the price has been driven as low as it can go, without the store losing money.
Ditto the cellular price.
Also there are a WIDE variety of tiers for wireless. You can pay $100 a month if you want, or you can go with Cricket at just $40 (5 GB), or Verizon's budget plan at $20 (you get "only" 300 megabytes but that's enough for plain text emailing). Same with cellphones. Mine costs me just $5/month because I only make a few calls. It's all a matter of what you choose.
Evil? Who isn't evil these days? But in this case, I also agree with Google (in part).
The wireless spectrum IS a limited fixed quantity, and eventually it will run out of room. (Some like ATT and Verizon say it already has and are looking for new space like TV channels.) If the companies do not impose limits, then Mother Nature will do it for us - the EM spectrum will become overloaded and internet access will slow to a crawl. Like what happens when large crowds of people gather in a small space (example: Washington Mall) and all try to use their cellphones at the same time.
Back then (80s) programming was the only way to use the TRS-80s and Apple IIs the schools gave us. Today? You just need to learn how to turn them on and click an icon, and so programming is no longer considered necessary unless you're going into a CSE major.
BTW:
I see a problem with the problem in the summary: 4+3+2=( )+2 is not the way math questions are typically phrased. In my experiences these problems usually looked like this: "4+3+2 = __+2 ; Fill in the blank." The instructions were explicit so students did not need to guess the teacher's desired result.
I don't like teachers that think writing confusing tests (aka trick questions) is any test of student ability. It's more a demonstration of the test-writer's lack of communication skills.
"...NO LAW shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech..." - In other words you have the right to speak to your customer without restraint. Or to a reporter without restraint. The consequence of that act is you may be charged for aiding a criminal to escape prosecution, but you still have the right to speak. That can NEVER be revoked.
Also anyone who truly believes that the People are ABOVE the government, should be willing to spend time in jail fighting for their rights. As Henry David Thoreau when he refused to reveal the location of runaway slaves, in direct opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act.
A lot of ye seem to forget that corporations only exist because government CREATED them (via the incorporation license).
So if you consider corporations "evil", then you should stop and remember who made that evil - the Congress. Otherwise companies would be private with full liability for the owner (upto and including jailtime). Per usual the corporate abuse is merely a symptom of the disease - the root cause goes back to the government.
As for saying the People are the Government - that simply isn't true. These are separate entities, with the Constitution (supreme law) standing in between like a shield to protect the People from the Government.
>>>Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?
Yes I did.:-) I did look-up the wikpedia article - that's how I found the title of the TV movie. Gideon's Trumpet stars movie master Henry Fonda and I HIGHLY recommend you download it & watch it. It's better than any sterile article, because it brings the story to life. .
>>>this case dealt with a criminal case, not so much a civil matter such as this.
The Government demanding you gag yourself, while they investigate you, your business, and customers? Sounds like a criminal case to me.
>>>you are arguing that lack of government is better than government
Why does everyone I talk to think in black-and-white? 1 or 0? The choices are not "government" or "no government". ----- I think in shades of gray, and I merely argue what Thomas Jefferson argued, "It is only to protect our individual rights that we resort to government, else we would have none." i.e. We need at least some kind of government, not anarchy. And not the current monolith that controls/regulates your every step.
As for citation, it's pretty easy to add up the numbers if you just do a little research at wikipedia (genocide). - Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China account for about 90 million all by themselves. - Then add the systematic killing enacted by 1910s Turkey, by the Khmer Rouge, by Iraq, and so on. - That puts you around 110-120 million citizens killed by their OWN governments since 1910.
Of course it's hard to put exact numbers on the figures, because not only are governments efficient at killing, but also covering it up. The numbers are estimates by historians based upon forensic research (i.e. digging up graves). In any case it's more than how many workers/customers were deliberately killed by corporations since 1910, which numbers in the thousands, not millions.
But most of those other 50 states (or cities) are only a dozen or hundred miles away.
It's easy to move from Baltimore to Frederick, or from Maryland to Delaware, and change my government/ISP. It's not so easy to change to other countries that lie thousands of miles away. That's why having the US government run everything is a bad idea..... most of the control should be left at the state or local level. (Or even better, at the level of the individual to run his own life.)
>>>I would prefer it if everything were capable of going above 1080p and more than 24 frames per second - but the entertainment industry seems to set these weird standards.
Blaming the wrong people. Government set that standard back in the 1990s while developing ATSC (HDTV) for over-the-air broadcast. And that was based upon the earlier 1035i developed by the Japanese government-owned NHK in the 1980s
>>>Just like I want great looks and and great sex from a girl.
The "great looks" part disappears around age 30. Sometimes sooner (25) if she let's herself go, or later (35) is she watches her weight but eventually the looks go-away, and your wife ends-up looking like a middle-aged grandma.
So I'd recommend just settling for the last two items. i.e. Enjoying yourself, like this article is about.
>>>Now [state and local governments] HAVE ALREADY monopolized huge areas.
Fixed that for you.
So how do you think government will fix a problem that it created? Regulating the monopoly (net neutrality) seems like a good first step, but revoking the monopoly licenses so other companies can compete for your Internet subscription would be an even better step. Restore choice back to the citizen.
>>>Corporations having the legal protections of a person without any of the legal obligations / responsibilities terrible.
This is why corporate licenses should be revoked. Instead the owner/managers of the company would be directly responsible for the actions of the company, upto and including manslaughter. (Example: When the Ford Pinto cars were blowing-up, the owner and managers would have been brought-up on trial & faced jail time, not just a fine.)
Most of the "TV" I watch is only 70 or 150 megabytes in size (via bittorrent). As long as I'm getting to see the latest Stargate or Eureka for free, and I'm enjoying it, it doesn't matter if the quality is "only" equal to VHS.
Similarly I don't mind watching HDTV via an old analog set. It's been downgraded to DVD quality but it's still better than the old staticy signal used to be. As for games: I'd sooner play a fun game on an old Atari or Nintendo systems (like Zelda Ocarina of Time), then most of the modern HD games on my X360.
"In Merrill's case, although the letter's gag order "was totally clear that they were saying that I couldn't speak to a lawyer" about it, he immediately contacted his personal attorney, and together they went to the ACLU in New York, which agreed to represent him. "My gut feeling is I'm an American," Merrill said, in an interview with Threat Level on Tuesday. "I always have a right to an attorney. There's no such thing as you can't talk to your attorney."
This guy wasn't allowed to defend himself with a professional lawyer. Clearly that is NULL according to both US and NY Constitutions. And Supreme Court ruling (see the movie Gideon's Trumpet).
>>>it should be subject to speedy judicial review after the fact -
BEFORE the fact. Warrants are supposed to be issued by judges, not police, and while under oath. These warrants the police are issuing without involving the courts are unconstitutional.
>>>When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant.
That law is null and void according to the Higher Law of the NY Constitution: "Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."
Slashdot Mirror
>>>You mean the same contract that one party can modify the terms of at any time?
And which you can terminate when that happens, without penalty. If for example you ISP changed from "unlimited" to "5 gigabytes" you can immediately terminate your relationship with that company. You are not bound to stay.
.
>>>I agree they are not a monopoly, BUT, getting into this business is not a simple as you seem to believe
Starting any business is never simple, but I'm sure if someone like Bill Gates or Donald Trump decided, "I can make a lot of money in wireless," they'd go ahead and do it. The fact that they CAN do it means the market is open. Look at google. At one time in the 1990s people would have said, "Trying to unseat Yahoo is nuts - nobody can do that." And along came upstart google.
.
>>>I agree they are not a monopoly,
I agree we agree. QED there's no need for government to impose net neutrality on Wireless ISPs. Government should only interfere when there's a monopoly (like the electric company or water company).
.
>>>You named 7 competitors, of which I've heard of 3. I don't consider that a healthy market.
You've probably never heard of Mussers, Darrenkamps, Weis, Turkey Hill, Fergusons, or Amelias either. That doesn't mean my local community doesn't have a "healthy market" within the grocery store sector. Likewise if you've not heard of Boost, Net 10, Cricket, or Clear, so what? It still doesn't change the fact I have ~10 choices overall. My market is very competitive.
A politician doesn't need to convince you. He needs to convince the other ~50 idiots (or ignorants) you live next door to.
Lying and promising impossible goals will be sufficient for that task. Reminds me of an interview from last year with a typical voter: "I came hear today because I heard the government was handing-out $1000 stimulus checks." Reporter: "Interesting. Where does the government get that money?" "Uh, I don't know. I really don't know. But wherever they got the money, I'm glad. The government is taking care of us." ----- These people are totally clueless. A politician could promise "free 1 terabit internet for everyone!" and the voters would say, "Yeah that's the man I'm voting for."
BTW:
Tony Abbott is correct: 1 gigabit is pie-in-the-sky. The world's fastest country is South Korea, and they still only average 0.03 Gbit/s. Japan averages just under 0.02 Gbit/s. A politician promising to take all of Australia to 1.0 Gbit/s is not reality - it's fantasy. Hmmmm. Maybe they think they can hire that fantasy character Geordi LaForge and adjust the gravitational constant of the Aussie space-time bubble and "presto" the 1.0 Gbit/s will appear.
Time to stop sniffing those Hemp seeds
>>>Even now, they continue to offer 'unlimited access' with restrictions in small print.
Which is perfectly legal. It is the citizen's responsibility to read every word prior to signing a contract. If you think small print should be outlawed then talk to your Congressman and ask for the law to be updated.
.
>>>Were they not allowed to take unlimited numbers of customers
This would be a Tyranny instead of Liberty. I should be free to run my internet service however I see fit - a few customers or as many as I can get. I am a free, liberated citizen. So long as I don't kill or physically abuse anyone, no harm and no foul.
.
>>>The very idea of Net Neutrality would force competition
With wireless I can pick Verizon, ATT, Sprint, Boost, Net 10, Cricket, Clear, or ..... That's a very competitive market, and there's no need for the government to impose net neutrality, because a monopoly does not exist. Instead let the People regulate the wireless companies through their buying choices. i.e. If ATT sucks then switch to one of the other many providers until you found one that's fully open to the internet.
Question: Who owns the celltowers? If this is a monopoly then the FCC will need to regulate that - which of course they already do.
The last time I read a story like this, the human was taking immuno-suppressant drugs which allowed the plant to grow without being attacked & killed by white blood cells.
+1 Insightful.
The company that a friend of mine joined is upfront. You get 5 gigabytes high speed, after which point the service is throttled. They telecoms are not misleading customers.
And for people who signed-up during the "unlimited" days, your contract states they can change to "limited" anytime they desire. When that happens you have the right to terminate the contract without penalty.
>>>my wired choices are, um, Comcast. With wireless I can pick Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Boost, Net 10, or about a dozen more.
Precisely.
That's a competitive market and there's no need for the government to impose net neutrality. I agree with Google. Let the People regulate the wireless companies through their buying choices. i.e. If ATT sucks then switch to one of the other many providers until you found one that's fully open to the internet.
Question: Who owns the celltowers? If this is a monopoly then the FCC will need to regulate that - which of course they already do.
>>>I have 4 wireless options (ATT, TMobile, Verizon, Sprint). With Wired I have DSL, Satellite, Cable, and DialUp
The Satellite and Phoneline dialup aren't real options. The first one is ridiculously expensive (~$50/month for speeds no faster than $15 DSL), and the second is dirt cheap but too slow to watch streaming videos. So that only leaves 2 wired options, and in some places just 1 wired option (either cable or dsl).
In my area the wireless providers include ATT, Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, Cricket, VirginMobile, Clear, and probably 1 or 2 others I'm not aware of. That's a competitive market and there's no need for the government to regulate wireless. I agree with Google.
>>>You can pick amongst half a dozen wireless providers who all somehow have the exact same pricing scheme
(cues up Penn & Teller tape) - "That's bullshit!" (puts tape away). They are not all the "exact same" price. They are similar in cost because the price has been pushed as low as it can go..... this is no different than how a frozen Healthy Choice meal costs about $2 whether I shop at Wal-Mart or 7-11 or Greens or Acme. That doesn't mean the grocery stores are colluding; it means the price has been driven as low as it can go, without the store losing money.
Ditto the cellular price.
Also there are a WIDE variety of tiers for wireless. You can pay $100 a month if you want, or you can go with Cricket at just $40 (5 GB), or Verizon's budget plan at $20 (you get "only" 300 megabytes but that's enough for plain text emailing). Same with cellphones. Mine costs me just $5/month because I only make a few calls. It's all a matter of what you choose.
Evil? Who isn't evil these days? But in this case, I also agree with Google (in part).
The wireless spectrum IS a limited fixed quantity, and eventually it will run out of room. (Some like ATT and Verizon say it already has and are looking for new space like TV channels.) If the companies do not impose limits, then Mother Nature will do it for us - the EM spectrum will become overloaded and internet access will slow to a crawl. Like what happens when large crowds of people gather in a small space (example: Washington Mall) and all try to use their cellphones at the same time.
Back then (80s) programming was the only way to use the TRS-80s and Apple IIs the schools gave us. Today? You just need to learn how to turn them on and click an icon, and so programming is no longer considered necessary unless you're going into a CSE major.
BTW:
I see a problem with the problem in the summary: 4+3+2=( )+2 is not the way math questions are typically phrased. In my experiences these problems usually looked like this: "4+3+2 = __+2 ; Fill in the blank." The instructions were explicit so students did not need to guess the teacher's desired result.
I don't like teachers that think writing confusing tests (aka trick questions) is any test of student ability. It's more a demonstration of the test-writer's lack of communication skills.
(emphasis mine)
"...NO LAW shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech..." - In other words you have the right to speak to your customer without restraint. Or to a reporter without restraint. The consequence of that act is you may be charged for aiding a criminal to escape prosecution, but you still have the right to speak. That can NEVER be revoked.
Also anyone who truly believes that the People are ABOVE the government, should be willing to spend time in jail fighting for their rights. As Henry David Thoreau when he refused to reveal the location of runaway slaves, in direct opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act.
A lot of ye seem to forget that corporations only exist because government CREATED them (via the incorporation license).
So if you consider corporations "evil", then you should stop and remember who made that evil - the Congress. Otherwise companies would be private with full liability for the owner (upto and including jailtime). Per usual the corporate abuse is merely a symptom of the disease - the root cause goes back to the government.
As for saying the People are the Government - that simply isn't true. These are separate entities, with the Constitution (supreme law) standing in between like a shield to protect the People from the Government.
>>>Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?
Yes I did. :-) I did look-up the wikpedia article - that's how I found the title of the TV movie. Gideon's Trumpet stars movie master Henry Fonda and I HIGHLY recommend you download it & watch it. It's better than any sterile article, because it brings the story to life.
.
>>>this case dealt with a criminal case, not so much a civil matter such as this.
The Government demanding you gag yourself, while they investigate you, your business, and customers? Sounds like a criminal case to me.
>>>you are arguing that lack of government is better than government
Why does everyone I talk to think in black-and-white? 1 or 0? The choices are not "government" or "no government". ----- I think in shades of gray, and I merely argue what Thomas Jefferson argued, "It is only to protect our individual rights that we resort to government, else we would have none." i.e. We need at least some kind of government, not anarchy. And not the current monolith that controls/regulates your every step.
As for citation, it's pretty easy to add up the numbers if you just do a little research at wikipedia (genocide).
- Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China account for about 90 million all by themselves.
- Then add the systematic killing enacted by 1910s Turkey, by the Khmer Rouge, by Iraq, and so on.
- That puts you around 110-120 million citizens killed by their OWN governments since 1910.
Of course it's hard to put exact numbers on the figures, because not only are governments efficient at killing, but also covering it up. The numbers are estimates by historians based upon forensic research (i.e. digging up graves). In any case it's more than how many workers/customers were deliberately killed by corporations since 1910, which numbers in the thousands, not millions.
But most of those other 50 states (or cities) are only a dozen or hundred miles away.
It's easy to move from Baltimore to Frederick, or from Maryland to Delaware, and change my government/ISP. It's not so easy to change to other countries that lie thousands of miles away. That's why having the US government run everything is a bad idea..... most of the control should be left at the state or local level. (Or even better, at the level of the individual to run his own life.)
>>>I would prefer it if everything were capable of going above 1080p and more than 24 frames per second - but the entertainment industry seems to set these weird standards.
Blaming the wrong people. Government set that standard back in the 1990s while developing ATSC (HDTV) for over-the-air broadcast. And that was based upon the earlier 1035i developed by the Japanese government-owned NHK in the 1980s
>>>Just like I want great looks and and great sex from a girl.
The "great looks" part disappears around age 30. Sometimes sooner (25) if she let's herself go, or later (35) is she watches her weight but eventually the looks go-away, and your wife ends-up looking like a middle-aged grandma.
So I'd recommend just settling for the last two items.
i.e. Enjoying yourself, like this article is about.
>>>Now [state and local governments] HAVE ALREADY monopolized huge areas.
Fixed that for you.
So how do you think government will fix a problem that it created? Regulating the monopoly (net neutrality) seems like a good first step, but revoking the monopoly licenses so other companies can compete for your Internet subscription would be an even better step. Restore choice back to the citizen.
>>>Corporations having the legal protections of a person without any of the legal obligations / responsibilities terrible.
This is why corporate licenses should be revoked. Instead the owner/managers of the company would be directly responsible for the actions of the company, upto and including manslaughter. (Example: When the Ford Pinto cars were blowing-up, the owner and managers would have been brought-up on trial & faced jail time, not just a fine.)
Eh.
Most of the "TV" I watch is only 70 or 150 megabytes in size (via bittorrent). As long as I'm getting to see the latest Stargate or Eureka for free, and I'm enjoying it, it doesn't matter if the quality is "only" equal to VHS.
Similarly I don't mind watching HDTV via an old analog set. It's been downgraded to DVD quality but it's still better than the old staticy signal used to be. As for games: I'd sooner play a fun game on an old Atari or Nintendo systems (like Zelda Ocarina of Time), then most of the modern HD games on my X360.
Read the article:
"In Merrill's case, although the letter's gag order "was totally clear that they were saying that I couldn't speak to a lawyer" about it, he immediately contacted his personal attorney, and together they went to the ACLU in New York, which agreed to represent him. "My gut feeling is I'm an American," Merrill said, in an interview with Threat Level on Tuesday. "I always have a right to an attorney. There's no such thing as you can't talk to your attorney."
This guy wasn't allowed to defend himself with a professional lawyer.
Clearly that is NULL according to both US and NY Constitutions.
And Supreme Court ruling (see the movie Gideon's Trumpet).
>>>it should be subject to speedy judicial review after the fact -
BEFORE the fact. Warrants are supposed to be issued by judges, not police, and while under oath. These warrants the police are issuing without involving the courts are unconstitutional.
>>>the FBI will have known it was he who leaked the info.
And people wonder why I fear Government more than GM, microsoft, RCA or other corporations. It should be obvious.
>>>When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant.
That law is null and void according to the Higher Law of the NY Constitution: "Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."