But if Reddit (or any other site) bans a topic of conversation, they are not infringing on your free speech rights. You're still free to say it. Just not there.
You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to force others to listen.
Furthermore, most sites have a "terms of use" agreement for people who post comments. If you agree to those terms of use, you are inherently accepting any limitations in those terms of use, and can't reasonably claim that they're denying you freedom of speech if they mute/ban you if you breach those terms.
Reddit is not required to give you a forum for something they don't want on there.
Actually, depending on the content of the article and the work-relationship with the paper, the writer of an article can be sued. Also, if you're writing for a newspaper that has any sort of real coverage (not some local market shopper or low circulation paper), then a lot of those articles... especially the ones that might jump-start a lawsuit are vetted, edited and checked multiple times.
Mind you, if they're just repeating something off of the AP wire, then that tends to pass the buck back up the food chain.
Letters to the editor skip past this with the "The views expressed in these letters are not the views of this paper" boilerplate.
As for why these reviewers could get sued. Well, it's the U.S. You can initiate a lawsuit against practically anyone for practically any reason. Actually winning the lawsuit can be a lot trickier, though.
Also, a lot of these review sites, especially ones like Yelp, typically contain some legal boilerplate saying that the reviewer is the one responsible for the content of their review, you have to be honest about it, etc.
So, if these are fake reviews (the reviewer never actually used the business in question), and are just badmouthing the business to be jerks... well, that's actionable.
A point you may be missing is that none of those you mentioned pulled a "I don't know, therefore Jesus" out of their hat. Boyle, for example, was a pious Anglican, but that didn't stop him from performing scientific experimentation.
Given that the Middle East has been having problems with religious violence since roughly forever, no, it's not surprising that there are conflicts between various religious groups, especially regarding one group proselytizing on another group's patch, as it were.
It's also hardly limited to the Middle East, for that matter. Europe had the 30 Years' War, the Albigensian Crusade, the Spanish Inquisition....
However, modern day, at least here in the States, it's just a bit different. Our streets are not exactly running red with the blood of one religious group killing members of another religious group. And most religious groups here in the States aren't hiding their religious texts behind the concept of trade secrets.
Scientology is. The Catholic church isn't sending out DMCA lawsuits every time someone posts a copy of a papal bull, for instance. Protestants don't necessarily like the Pope, but they're not claiming that Catholics have no right to practice Christianity outside of the Protestant faith. Scientology insists that only in the Church of Scientology can you practice Scientology. Okay, sure, they have no actual legal force to stop the Free Zoners from practicing Scientology, but it doesn't stop them from harassing them in other ways.
Like trying to discredit critics by getting them blamed for bomb threats? (Operation Freakout)
Like infiltrating government organizations and agencies in order to find out what materials those organizations have on the CoS? (Operation Snow White)
Do they (Druze or Alawite) claim copyright violations if you post their beliefs in a public forum? Do they claim them as trade secrets.
There is a bit of a difference in "We don't publicly spread our beliefs to those not of our faith" and "We will initiate a lawsuit against people who post our beliefs."
Do Buddhists or Mormons say that if you learn these secret things without proper instruction, you could be harmed or die? Because, that's pretty much what the CoS says about the OT docs.
The difference is, when you've been a faithful Catholic for 20 years, and tithed the whole time and whatever else, they don't take you aside one day and say "Hey, here's the super-duper secret Bible that almost no one gets to look at. You're going to love the chapter where after Jesus' resurrection, grey aliens from Proxima 9 took him on a 2-millienium mission to the stars."
Scientology does just that. If you have no idea, going in, about what thetans are, or where they come from, you don't find out about them until you're so invested in Scientology that it's very difficult to break away from it. "It has to be true, look how much time and money I've invested in it."
And that's another thing.
Let's say, for whatever reason, that I want to study up on Christianity. Well, one option that a lot of churches have are discussion groups/classes on it, especially for people who are converting to that church.
A lot of those classes are pretty cheap, if not outright free, and here's the important bit. You don't actually have to take them. I could, right now, walk into practically any church in the country and join, for free.
In Scientology, if you want to learn more (or are peer-pressured to do so), every class costs money. The higher you go, the pricier the classes. Oh, but you can get around some of the costs by signing a billion-year contract.
Yeah, that's all completely normal and above board.
Show me another religion that hides their religious texts behind the concept of "trade secrets".
I mean, I can go to pretty much any church and read a Bible. Heck, I can buy a copy at practically any bookstore. Same with the Qur'an. Or the Torah.
I can have religious discussions with Christians (of varying denominations) or Muslims or Jews and find out pretty much anything I want to know about their religion and it doesn't cost me anything other than time.
You want to officially learn about Scientology? Start forking over the cash. (Yes, officially. According to the Church of Scientology, practicing Scientology outside of the auspices of the CoS is bad, mmkay? Not even the Pope tries to insist that you can't be a real Christian unless you're Catholic.)
A lot of that stuff that we know about the Church of Scientology... like Xenu, and the Galactic Confederation, and all that (from the OT III docs)? We're not supposed to know that. We only know about it because of civil trials involving the CoS, and they tried to suppress that stuff under the concept of it being trade secrets.
So yeah, show me another religion that has trade secrets. Where's that other major religion that you don't learn the 'true faith' until and unless you've invested a substantial whack of cash?
NCIS also, rather infamously, had an episode where they were the ones being hacked, and two characters were using the same keyboard at the same time to try and stop the hack.
In 1986, three years before your "recent history" cutoff point, Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 50% to 28%, which then made it the lowest it had been since 1916.
No, but the path of least resistance for increased costs is "shovel it off on the customers". Hell, remember the CEO of Papa John's saying that because of the ACA, he was going to have to raise pizza prices (by a whole $0.25)?
To be completely safe from any unwanted software on the laptop, strike the laptop repeatedly with a 10-pound sledgehammer.
Once the laptop has been reduced to a pile of plastic and metal shards, it is now safe to use. (Provided you wear safety gloves when handling the shards.)
I'm curious how the Albigensian Crusade was against a Muslim war of conquest.
Also, consider this. When the Muslims invaded and largely controlled the Iberian peninsula, they still allowed Christians and Jews to keep their faith (they were not required to convert). They did have to pay an additional tax if they did not convert.
After the Reconquista (when the various Spanish kings kicked the Muslims armies out of the Iberian peninsula), Muslims and Jews were given the "choice" of convert or be expelled. I mean, you could argue that for the Muslims who had moved in, it was somewhat to be expected, but for the Jews?
Oh, and of course, the Reconquista also led to the Spanish Inquisition, but that hardly matters, right?
He's not blaming current Christians. He's saying that if we're going to make the fallacy of blaming the Islam religion for all sorts of shit, we have to admit that the history of Christianity isn't exactly all warm fuzzy bunnies either.
And let's face it, when you have idiots like Eric Bolling saying that followers of every other religion (besides Islam) have never killed anyone in the name of religion, well, yeah, apparently we need to be reminded that they have.
And you can bet that within a couple years, Disney (and other corporations) will push for another extension. Lord knows, we can't have Mickey Mouse enter the public domain "on schedule" in 2023.
The claim is that 11 out of the 12 footballs provided by New England were deflated AFTER they had been checked by the NFL officials.
A few hours before the game starts, the officials check the footballs provided by both teams to make sure they are properly inflated. (Proper inflation is between 12.5 and 13.5 PSI.)
The footballs are then held by the officials until prior to the game, where they are handed over to the equipment managers for each team to take to that team's sideline area.
Now, at halftime, the officials checked the pressure on the Patriot's footballs again. (This is not standard procedure, as in this is not done in every game.) 11 out of the 12 footballs were found to be under the required minimum pressure of 12.5 PSI. Depending on which report/news article you read, they were under-inflated by 1 to 2 PSI.
Weather conditions (lower temperature on the field compared to the room where the initial pressure check occurred) could lower the pressure of the footballs, but it apparently did not do so (at least to the same extend) for the Colts' footballs. Hence, the charge that someone (or more than one) in the Patriots' organization deliberately deflated the footballs.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes perfect sense, as long as you don't think about it.
In the future, could you preface your statements with the fact that you are an ignorant clod, so as to warn people in advance?
But if Reddit (or any other site) bans a topic of conversation, they are not infringing on your free speech rights. You're still free to say it. Just not there.
You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to force others to listen.
Furthermore, most sites have a "terms of use" agreement for people who post comments. If you agree to those terms of use, you are inherently accepting any limitations in those terms of use, and can't reasonably claim that they're denying you freedom of speech if they mute/ban you if you breach those terms.
Reddit is not required to give you a forum for something they don't want on there.
Generally speaking, the window would have to be open for a drone to move the curtains.
Perhaps you're thinking of shutters.
Actually, depending on the content of the article and the work-relationship with the paper, the writer of an article can be sued. Also, if you're writing for a newspaper that has any sort of real coverage (not some local market shopper or low circulation paper), then a lot of those articles... especially the ones that might jump-start a lawsuit are vetted, edited and checked multiple times.
Mind you, if they're just repeating something off of the AP wire, then that tends to pass the buck back up the food chain.
Letters to the editor skip past this with the "The views expressed in these letters are not the views of this paper" boilerplate.
As for why these reviewers could get sued. Well, it's the U.S. You can initiate a lawsuit against practically anyone for practically any reason. Actually winning the lawsuit can be a lot trickier, though.
Also, a lot of these review sites, especially ones like Yelp, typically contain some legal boilerplate saying that the reviewer is the one responsible for the content of their review, you have to be honest about it, etc.
So, if these are fake reviews (the reviewer never actually used the business in question), and are just badmouthing the business to be jerks... well, that's actionable.
The problem is, with an omnipotent God, isn't everything an "Act of God"?
"Bobby didn't kick his meth habit. God's will, I suppose."
"Hey, a bus just hit that mime, yay Jesus!"
A point you may be missing is that none of those you mentioned pulled a "I don't know, therefore Jesus" out of their hat. Boyle, for example, was a pious Anglican, but that didn't stop him from performing scientific experimentation.
Nonsense. We can always test new drugs on creatures that absolutely no one cares about.
Lawyers.
Given that the Middle East has been having problems with religious violence since roughly forever, no, it's not surprising that there are conflicts between various religious groups, especially regarding one group proselytizing on another group's patch, as it were.
It's also hardly limited to the Middle East, for that matter. Europe had the 30 Years' War, the Albigensian Crusade, the Spanish Inquisition....
However, modern day, at least here in the States, it's just a bit different. Our streets are not exactly running red with the blood of one religious group killing members of another religious group. And most religious groups here in the States aren't hiding their religious texts behind the concept of trade secrets.
Scientology is. The Catholic church isn't sending out DMCA lawsuits every time someone posts a copy of a papal bull, for instance. Protestants don't necessarily like the Pope, but they're not claiming that Catholics have no right to practice Christianity outside of the Protestant faith. Scientology insists that only in the Church of Scientology can you practice Scientology. Okay, sure, they have no actual legal force to stop the Free Zoners from practicing Scientology, but it doesn't stop them from harassing them in other ways.
Like trying to discredit critics by getting them blamed for bomb threats? (Operation Freakout)
Like infiltrating government organizations and agencies in order to find out what materials those organizations have on the CoS? (Operation Snow White)
Do they (Druze or Alawite) claim copyright violations if you post their beliefs in a public forum? Do they claim them as trade secrets.
There is a bit of a difference in "We don't publicly spread our beliefs to those not of our faith" and "We will initiate a lawsuit against people who post our beliefs."
Do Buddhists or Mormons say that if you learn these secret things without proper instruction, you could be harmed or die? Because, that's pretty much what the CoS says about the OT docs.
The difference is, when you've been a faithful Catholic for 20 years, and tithed the whole time and whatever else, they don't take you aside one day and say "Hey, here's the super-duper secret Bible that almost no one gets to look at. You're going to love the chapter where after Jesus' resurrection, grey aliens from Proxima 9 took him on a 2-millienium mission to the stars."
Scientology does just that. If you have no idea, going in, about what thetans are, or where they come from, you don't find out about them until you're so invested in Scientology that it's very difficult to break away from it. "It has to be true, look how much time and money I've invested in it."
And that's another thing.
Let's say, for whatever reason, that I want to study up on Christianity. Well, one option that a lot of churches have are discussion groups/classes on it, especially for people who are converting to that church.
A lot of those classes are pretty cheap, if not outright free, and here's the important bit. You don't actually have to take them. I could, right now, walk into practically any church in the country and join, for free.
In Scientology, if you want to learn more (or are peer-pressured to do so), every class costs money. The higher you go, the pricier the classes. Oh, but you can get around some of the costs by signing a billion-year contract.
Yeah, that's all completely normal and above board.
Didn't some place in Florida just get busted for basically operating like a club, but saying they were a religion?
And don't forget, some of those beliefs are "trade secrets".
Show me another religion that hides their religious texts behind the concept of "trade secrets".
I mean, I can go to pretty much any church and read a Bible. Heck, I can buy a copy at practically any bookstore. Same with the Qur'an. Or the Torah.
I can have religious discussions with Christians (of varying denominations) or Muslims or Jews and find out pretty much anything I want to know about their religion and it doesn't cost me anything other than time.
You want to officially learn about Scientology? Start forking over the cash. (Yes, officially. According to the Church of Scientology, practicing Scientology outside of the auspices of the CoS is bad, mmkay? Not even the Pope tries to insist that you can't be a real Christian unless you're Catholic.)
A lot of that stuff that we know about the Church of Scientology... like Xenu, and the Galactic Confederation, and all that (from the OT III docs)? We're not supposed to know that. We only know about it because of civil trials involving the CoS, and they tried to suppress that stuff under the concept of it being trade secrets.
So yeah, show me another religion that has trade secrets. Where's that other major religion that you don't learn the 'true faith' until and unless you've invested a substantial whack of cash?
NCIS also, rather infamously, had an episode where they were the ones being hacked, and two characters were using the same keyboard at the same time to try and stop the hack.
In 1986, three years before your "recent history" cutoff point, Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from 50% to 28%, which then made it the lowest it had been since 1916.
And the silly thing is supposed to apply to seasonal workers as well, so 3-4 months of employment creates an 18-month non-compete clause?
Yeah, not only should this not be enforceable, but whoever at Amazon thought this was a good idea should have their head removed from their arse.
No, but the path of least resistance for increased costs is "shovel it off on the customers". Hell, remember the CEO of Papa John's saying that because of the ACA, he was going to have to raise pizza prices (by a whole $0.25)?
To be completely safe from any unwanted software on the laptop, strike the laptop repeatedly with a 10-pound sledgehammer.
Once the laptop has been reduced to a pile of plastic and metal shards, it is now safe to use. (Provided you wear safety gloves when handling the shards.)
I'm curious how the Albigensian Crusade was against a Muslim war of conquest.
Also, consider this. When the Muslims invaded and largely controlled the Iberian peninsula, they still allowed Christians and Jews to keep their faith (they were not required to convert). They did have to pay an additional tax if they did not convert.
After the Reconquista (when the various Spanish kings kicked the Muslims armies out of the Iberian peninsula), Muslims and Jews were given the "choice" of convert or be expelled. I mean, you could argue that for the Muslims who had moved in, it was somewhat to be expected, but for the Jews?
Oh, and of course, the Reconquista also led to the Spanish Inquisition, but that hardly matters, right?
He's not blaming current Christians. He's saying that if we're going to make the fallacy of blaming the Islam religion for all sorts of shit, we have to admit that the history of Christianity isn't exactly all warm fuzzy bunnies either.
And let's face it, when you have idiots like Eric Bolling saying that followers of every other religion (besides Islam) have never killed anyone in the name of religion, well, yeah, apparently we need to be reminded that they have.
And you can bet that within a couple years, Disney (and other corporations) will push for another extension. Lord knows, we can't have Mickey Mouse enter the public domain "on schedule" in 2023.
The claim is that 11 out of the 12 footballs provided by New England were deflated AFTER they had been checked by the NFL officials.
A few hours before the game starts, the officials check the footballs provided by both teams to make sure they are properly inflated. (Proper inflation is between 12.5 and 13.5 PSI.)
The footballs are then held by the officials until prior to the game, where they are handed over to the equipment managers for each team to take to that team's sideline area.
Now, at halftime, the officials checked the pressure on the Patriot's footballs again. (This is not standard procedure, as in this is not done in every game.) 11 out of the 12 footballs were found to be under the required minimum pressure of 12.5 PSI. Depending on which report/news article you read, they were under-inflated by 1 to 2 PSI.
Weather conditions (lower temperature on the field compared to the room where the initial pressure check occurred) could lower the pressure of the footballs, but it apparently did not do so (at least to the same extend) for the Colts' footballs. Hence, the charge that someone (or more than one) in the Patriots' organization deliberately deflated the footballs.