In NYC, they've hired the USPS to do Sunday deliveries, just for Amazon packages. Weird to see a USPS truck with the back filled entirely with Amazon boxes. The USPS gets the extra revenue, the employees that want it get overtime, and people get their packages on Sunday. Pretty slick.
That's what a compelling "state" interest is - the state being the people. The question is, do the rest of us have an interest in this speech NOT taking place that's compelling enough to justify prohibiting an individual from engaging in that speech.
True, but that's not what was at issue here. The question was, could you ban somebody from blasting their political message into your bedroom at four in the morning, but not ban someone from blasting their charitable message. And the answer was no.
There have been restrictions based on calling, but there's general agreement that calling somebody is a form of speech, and deserves some form of protection, although by no means unlimited protection (hence you have the TCPA, the do-not-call list, etc.). The do-not-call list has held up thus far partly because it's limited generally to commercial calling, and commercial speech receives less protection, in general, than other kinds of speech.
The judge didn't rule that political robocalls couldn't be banned, but rather that you couldn't JUST ban political robocalls. Generally, content-based restrictions on speech face a much higher hurdle than form-based restrictions. If the law had banned ALL robocalls, it might still have been overturned, but by only trying to ban SOME robocalls, the law was banning speech based on its content (political vs. charity message), and that's a very tough hurdle to get over.
Verizon stopped selling new unlimited plans five years ago (mid-2011), a couple of months after they launched their first LTE phone. The use case for the unlimited plans when people signed up for them was web browsing, email, Google maps, etc, since the 3G network wasn't reliably fast enough to do decent quality video, and certainly not video of sufficient quality for in-home use. Also, Verizon has never offered free tethering on unlimited plans.
Who knows why they didn't do it sooner? Maybe the number of customers using really high (for mobile broadband) amounts of data on these plans has risen enough to make it an issue worth dealing with, maybe they hadn't dug into the data to look at the share of data being used by share of customers. Don't really know. Again, though, the fact that they offered this plan in the past creates no obligation for them to offer it in the future.
Except very few people use these connections as their home broadband connection, and that's not a use case Verizon is interested in serving, so the company is choosing not to.
"promise that once that candidate is in office large donors will receive political appointment in a federal government position"
Not OK, but there has to be an explicit quid pro quo (i.e. the candidate has to offer the position in exchange for the support). Offering someone a position who has supported you in the past doesn't violate the law, unless you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the support was conditioned on the offer. If this weren't the case, then it would be virtually impossible for any politician to fill political appointments with anybody but opponents. "So, you went out and campaigned on my behalf? Sorry, can't nominate you for a cabinet job."
In other words, it would be illegal for Bernie Sanders to tell Elizabeth Warren "endorse me, and I'll make you Secretary of the Treasury." It would NOT be illegal for Sanders, having been endorsed by Warren, to then say "I appreciate your support in our efforts, now that I've won the election, I want you to be Secretary of the Treasury.
The Democratic party has a huge problem. It's also a pretty simple problem: If the US equivalent of the Australian Electoral commission got caught picking a favourite between one of the two major parties there would be a royal commission and a complete overhaul of our political system.
It's really not comparable. The Democratic Party is, fundamentally, a private organization. While I agree that, in principle, the DNC shouldn't favor one candidate over another in the process of choosing who the Democratic candidate for a particular office will be, it's entirely different from the actual election to a public office.
As an analogy, the DNC is like a team's manager, not the referee.
No Hatch Act violations that I've seen - none of these are federal employees. There are pretty clear standards on what the Hatch Act requires/prohibits, and it doesn't prohibit elected officials (or gov't employees) from engaging in political activity, just restricts how they do it. The selling federal appointments question is a stretch - needs to be a quite explicit quid pro quo, and I haven't seen any evidence of that here. At the federal level, libel/slander isn't a criminal act, it's a civil tort. For a public figure like Sanders, the threshhold to qualify as libel is VERY high. To be liable for it, the alleged libeler/slanderer has to be proven to have engaged in "actual malice" - he needs to have known that the statement was false (as well as being defamatory) and published it anyway, with the intent to harm. Libel also requires a statement of fact, not opinion.
What crimes would those be? Seriously, I'm curious. What crimes have been revealed by the DNC emails that were released? Staffers at the DNC didn't much like a number of members of Sanders's staff. Some of them preferred Clinton. Good policy? Maybe, maybe not, but not a crime by any definition of the term.
Of course, if you are using a voice lock on something that opens with you saying, "Alibaba was a fool", and they try to force you to say that to the lock to open it, I doubt anyone would consider that anything other than being forced to give up your password and open your locked items. After all, it's not the existence of the voice/fingerprint/password/key, it's the being forced to provide it for unlocking purposes that's F'd up.
Depends on the circumstances. If the gov't knows the password, and there's no question that the device is yours, then you could be required to state the voice passphrase. Again, the Fifth Amendment protects you from having to testify (i.e state something you know) against yourself. It doesn't protect you from having to provide charactistics of yourself (appearance, fingerprints, DNA, voice, etc.).
Actually, it's not, since there's no way any reasonable person could believe that, by repeating the words you're being instructed to say, you're endorsing those words. While it may be "spoken," it's not "speech."
Was he compelled to actually put his finger on the phone, or was he just compelled to surrender his fingerprints? TFA is not precisely clear about that. If it's the former then that's incontrovertibly a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Not a Fifth Amendment violation. He's not being required to testify as to anything he knows, it's just a physical characteristic. Other example would be voice exemplars - it's Constitutional to require a defendant to say "hands up, give me the money," as part of a "voice lineup," since saying that doesn't require the defendant to testify to any content or knowledge. United States v. Dionisio
I didn't say fuck the rural poor, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I see no reason to further privilege helping the rural poor over the urban poor, however.
Given how massively subsidized rural areas are already (and how overrepresented heavily rural small states are at the Federal level), it's pretty gutsy of you to demand even more. Once you start paying for my urban parking, I'll consider helping to fund your broadband.
And by your definition, a Mexican citizen who commits murder in Mexico should be extradited and tried under US laws?
1. He's charged with infringing on the copyrights of US entities, so the victims are Americans. If you mastermind a bank robbery in NYC, but do it from Poland, you can still be charged in the US and extradited (the converse is true as well, of course). 2. He took ad revenue from US entities, creating another link to the US, (and the grounds for the money laundering charge, I believe). 3. He's not actually charged with violating US tax laws - I believe the IRS involvement is primarily that their investigators have a lot of experience dealing with money laundering cases. 4. Looks like he also leased some US-located servers at one point for email service, creating a further US link.
Slashdot Mirror
In NYC, they've hired the USPS to do Sunday deliveries, just for Amazon packages. Weird to see a USPS truck with the back filled entirely with Amazon boxes. The USPS gets the extra revenue, the employees that want it get overtime, and people get their packages on Sunday. Pretty slick.
That's what a compelling "state" interest is - the state being the people. The question is, do the rest of us have an interest in this speech NOT taking place that's compelling enough to justify prohibiting an individual from engaging in that speech.
True, but that's not what was at issue here. The question was, could you ban somebody from blasting their political message into your bedroom at four in the morning, but not ban someone from blasting their charitable message. And the answer was no.
There have been restrictions based on calling, but there's general agreement that calling somebody is a form of speech, and deserves some form of protection, although by no means unlimited protection (hence you have the TCPA, the do-not-call list, etc.). The do-not-call list has held up thus far partly because it's limited generally to commercial calling, and commercial speech receives less protection, in general, than other kinds of speech.
The judge didn't rule that political robocalls couldn't be banned, but rather that you couldn't JUST ban political robocalls. Generally, content-based restrictions on speech face a much higher hurdle than form-based restrictions. If the law had banned ALL robocalls, it might still have been overturned, but by only trying to ban SOME robocalls, the law was banning speech based on its content (political vs. charity message), and that's a very tough hurdle to get over.
If you happen to live in a major data center, 100Gbps service will cost you $20k/month at the very least. Are you sure you didn't mean 1Gbps service?
100Gbps service? Are you planning on running an ISP with a couple hundred thousand customers out of your house?
Verizon stopped selling new unlimited plans five years ago (mid-2011), a couple of months after they launched their first LTE phone. The use case for the unlimited plans when people signed up for them was web browsing, email, Google maps, etc, since the 3G network wasn't reliably fast enough to do decent quality video, and certainly not video of sufficient quality for in-home use. Also, Verizon has never offered free tethering on unlimited plans.
Who knows why they didn't do it sooner? Maybe the number of customers using really high (for mobile broadband) amounts of data on these plans has risen enough to make it an issue worth dealing with, maybe they hadn't dug into the data to look at the share of data being used by share of customers. Don't really know. Again, though, the fact that they offered this plan in the past creates no obligation for them to offer it in the future.
Except very few people use these connections as their home broadband connection, and that's not a use case Verizon is interested in serving, so the company is choosing not to.
Comcast/NBC is streaming pretty much every event live. No additional cost, if you subscribe to cable/satellite/Telco TV.
"promise that once that candidate is in office large donors will receive political appointment in a federal government position" Not OK, but there has to be an explicit quid pro quo (i.e. the candidate has to offer the position in exchange for the support). Offering someone a position who has supported you in the past doesn't violate the law, unless you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the support was conditioned on the offer. If this weren't the case, then it would be virtually impossible for any politician to fill political appointments with anybody but opponents. "So, you went out and campaigned on my behalf? Sorry, can't nominate you for a cabinet job." In other words, it would be illegal for Bernie Sanders to tell Elizabeth Warren "endorse me, and I'll make you Secretary of the Treasury." It would NOT be illegal for Sanders, having been endorsed by Warren, to then say "I appreciate your support in our efforts, now that I've won the election, I want you to be Secretary of the Treasury.
1. That's a civil complaint, so "crimes" don't come into it. 2. I doubt that case even gets past the first motion to dismiss.
The Democratic party has a huge problem. It's also a pretty simple problem: If the US equivalent of the Australian Electoral commission got caught picking a favourite between one of the two major parties there would be a royal commission and a complete overhaul of our political system.
It's really not comparable. The Democratic Party is, fundamentally, a private organization. While I agree that, in principle, the DNC shouldn't favor one candidate over another in the process of choosing who the Democratic candidate for a particular office will be, it's entirely different from the actual election to a public office. As an analogy, the DNC is like a team's manager, not the referee.
No Hatch Act violations that I've seen - none of these are federal employees. There are pretty clear standards on what the Hatch Act requires/prohibits, and it doesn't prohibit elected officials (or gov't employees) from engaging in political activity, just restricts how they do it. The selling federal appointments question is a stretch - needs to be a quite explicit quid pro quo, and I haven't seen any evidence of that here. At the federal level, libel/slander isn't a criminal act, it's a civil tort. For a public figure like Sanders, the threshhold to qualify as libel is VERY high. To be liable for it, the alleged libeler/slanderer has to be proven to have engaged in "actual malice" - he needs to have known that the statement was false (as well as being defamatory) and published it anyway, with the intent to harm. Libel also requires a statement of fact, not opinion.
What campaign finance laws were violated, and how?
What crimes would those be? Seriously, I'm curious. What crimes have been revealed by the DNC emails that were released? Staffers at the DNC didn't much like a number of members of Sanders's staff. Some of them preferred Clinton. Good policy? Maybe, maybe not, but not a crime by any definition of the term.
Yup, I'm sure this thing was built for fighting forest fires and marine rescue. I bet it can also pick up the occasional manganese nodule.
Of course, if you are using a voice lock on something that opens with you saying, "Alibaba was a fool", and they try to force you to say that to the lock to open it, I doubt anyone would consider that anything other than being forced to give up your password and open your locked items.
After all, it's not the existence of the voice/fingerprint/password/key, it's the being forced to provide it for unlocking purposes that's F'd up.
Depends on the circumstances. If the gov't knows the password, and there's no question that the device is yours, then you could be required to state the voice passphrase. Again, the Fifth Amendment protects you from having to testify (i.e state something you know) against yourself. It doesn't protect you from having to provide charactistics of yourself (appearance, fingerprints, DNA, voice, etc.).
Actually, it's not, since there's no way any reasonable person could believe that, by repeating the words you're being instructed to say, you're endorsing those words. While it may be "spoken," it's not "speech."
Yup, because that's something (the location) that you know, not something that you are.
Was he compelled to actually put his finger on the phone, or was he just compelled to surrender his fingerprints? TFA is not precisely clear about that. If it's the former then that's incontrovertibly a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Not a Fifth Amendment violation. He's not being required to testify as to anything he knows, it's just a physical characteristic. Other example would be voice exemplars - it's Constitutional to require a defendant to say "hands up, give me the money," as part of a "voice lineup," since saying that doesn't require the defendant to testify to any content or knowledge. United States v. Dionisio
I didn't say fuck the rural poor, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I see no reason to further privilege helping the rural poor over the urban poor, however.
Given how massively subsidized rural areas are already (and how overrepresented heavily rural small states are at the Federal level), it's pretty gutsy of you to demand even more. Once you start paying for my urban parking, I'll consider helping to fund your broadband.
And by your definition, a Mexican citizen who commits murder in Mexico should be extradited and tried under US laws?
1. He's charged with infringing on the copyrights of US entities, so the victims are Americans. If you mastermind a bank robbery in NYC, but do it from Poland, you can still be charged in the US and extradited (the converse is true as well, of course).
2. He took ad revenue from US entities, creating another link to the US, (and the grounds for the money laundering charge, I believe).
3. He's not actually charged with violating US tax laws - I believe the IRS involvement is primarily that their investigators have a lot of experience dealing with money laundering cases.
4. Looks like he also leased some US-located servers at one point for email service, creating a further US link.