again you are willfully ignorant. there are many types of unprotected speech which you would clearly be aware of if you but thought for a moment. you would do well to learn the relevant case law before speaking again (pun intended): https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...
Also, you're argument about the fire in a theater makes me believe that you and Mi are the same person, as you have given the exact same straw man / deflection argument as him a few days ago. and you are just as wrong as he was in doing so.
as your helpful link points out ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), people shouting fire in crowded theaters or other gatherings had, at the time of that case, killed hundreds of people in the ensuing panics. thus the Justice in the case was not creating the reference for the first time (as you seem to want to imply), but pointing it out as something the people of the time would be commonly familiar with as a kind of speech that is dangerous and not worthy of protection.
once again you prove that you know nothing.
The fact that Holmes got it wrong in his case (a case that was later overturned) doesnt undermine the concept of the clear and present danger test.
even inefficiency is only a minor player in what drives cost in the US.
in the US the primary reason care is so expensive is simply because: it can be. ie, because they can get away with it.
because healthcare is not and never will be a truly free market situation. -when you are dying you need care NOW, and aren't going to tell the ambulance driver "no, go to the other, farther away hospital, it's cheaper" -when you need a specific high cost medication to NOT DIE, the majority of people are going so "ok", not "can we try something cheaper?"
because healthcare is a captive market. and because private insurers lack the same ability to negotiate or even flat out control prices the way a government can. and most insurers actually have little interest or compelling reason to lower costs to the degree as a single payer government system can; they know they have a captive consumer base.
the factors squeezing them out are the constant uncertainties and undermining of the system by conservatives as they try to rewrite the law by court/executive order. the underpinning precepts of the ACA are just about the best a private insurance system can ever hope to do, though there is still more than can occur to enhance competitiveness of markets while protecting consumer choice.
that said, it still falls short of the effectiveness and efficiency of a well run single payer system.
also, caveat: it's not that people have no choice when it comes to their employer plan (they can totally get insurance on their own outside of it, and indeed some people used to need to due to being rejected by the employer plan over pre-existing conditions, or because it doesn't cover something that they need), but that because the employer plan is effectively subsidized through tax breaks for the employer (who then typically pays a portion of the premium cost for the employee), the employer plan is thus much cheaper for the employee than an outside plan.
you're an idiot if you think the ACA changed idea of going to an insurance company for insurance.
that's exactly what the exchanges are, only with greater transparency and competition than existed before, forcing them to disclose their fees upfront and in a collected location making it easier for the consumer to evaluation his choices between companies and plans. Imagine that.
um....its not about you and your doctor now simply by virtue of having insurance at all, regardless of whether its public or private. private insurance is still a 3rd party. and they insert themselves even more forcefully.
the only way to escape THAT is by paying 100% out of your own pocket.
and that simply isn't possible for the bottom 99.9% of the population.
last time they tried to do that conservatives got all pissy about the IRS trying to enforce the law as written and get groups to use the more appropriate 501(d) section of tax law rather than 501(c), and successfully forced the IRS to back down.
only if you keep moving the goalposts as to what defines a republican. that's all these cries of "RINO" are anyway: moving the goalposts each year as the GOP pushes itself further and further to the right.
BS yourself. Requiring disclosure of who paid for the ads != free speech violation.
Controlling means content. This has nothing to do with content. This has nothing to do with restricting speech.
All this does is bring online political ads to the same standard that already exists for all other forms of political advertising (print, radio, tv, etc).
You once again are miscomprehending and misrepresenting the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
bigots gonna bigot
if vape vapors prove to be as harmful as cigarette smoke...THEN YES THEY SHOULD BACKOFF.
how are you seriously arguing against that?
your comment is a textbook example of "freedumb.".
id say scratchers are a problem cause they scratch....and then they touch doorknobs....or shake your hand.
Translation: "I don't know if this is bad for me yet, so I'll go ahead and keep breathing it. What's the worst that could happen?"
someone's triggered
Orville is pretty hit or miss.
the obvious fanboydom towards trek and thorny moral issues is cool....but the macfarlane caliber jokes can go away.
if the idea of tolerance and inclusivity trigger you....how have you ever stomached any Star Trek show?
A lot of the technology bs is so far out there it's not even something you can remotely imagine as being real.
Everything else feels like a bog standard Hollywood action movie with tons of CG. It's almost well done enough that it's generally watchable
You must be new to Trek
Trek fans wouldn't be Trek fans if they didn't complain about every new Trek show and how it's not as good as the last one.
again you are willfully ignorant.
there are many types of unprotected speech which you would clearly be aware of if you but thought for a moment.
you would do well to learn the relevant case law before speaking again (pun intended): https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...
relevant here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- clear and present danger
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- restrictions on speech meant to incite illegal activity
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- libel is not protected
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- slander is not protected
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... -- defamation is not protected
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
Also, you're argument about the fire in a theater makes me believe that you and Mi are the same person, as you have given the exact same straw man / deflection argument as him a few days ago. and you are just as wrong as he was in doing so.
quoting myself ( https://slashdot.org/comments.... ) :
as your helpful link points out ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), people shouting fire in crowded theaters or other gatherings had, at the time of that case, killed hundreds of people in the ensuing panics. thus the Justice in the case was not creating the reference for the first time (as you seem to want to imply), but pointing it out as something the people of the time would be commonly familiar with as a kind of speech that is dangerous and not worthy of protection.
once again you prove that you know nothing.
The fact that Holmes got it wrong in his case (a case that was later overturned) doesnt undermine the concept of the clear and present danger test.
Reagan is a...what's the phrase they like now? "pinko libturd" ? by today's GOP standards.
my point still stands.
is he wrong though?
you seem shocked that democrats werent marching in the streets after clintons election...i think you may be confused.
0. the ones youve been watching have been.
1. or maybe it's just a witty bit of snark and you're over thinking it.
even inefficiency is only a minor player in what drives cost in the US.
in the US the primary reason care is so expensive is simply because: it can be.
ie, because they can get away with it.
because healthcare is not and never will be a truly free market situation.
-when you are dying you need care NOW, and aren't going to tell the ambulance driver "no, go to the other, farther away hospital, it's cheaper"
-when you need a specific high cost medication to NOT DIE, the majority of people are going so "ok", not "can we try something cheaper?"
because healthcare is a captive market.
and because private insurers lack the same ability to negotiate or even flat out control prices the way a government can.
and most insurers actually have little interest or compelling reason to lower costs to the degree as a single payer government system can; they know they have a captive consumer base.
also: I'm sure the local school boards would be surprised to know they don't actually control their own schools.
the above post is 100% bs.
the factors squeezing them out are the constant uncertainties and undermining of the system by conservatives as they try to rewrite the law by court/executive order. the underpinning precepts of the ACA are just about the best a private insurance system can ever hope to do, though there is still more than can occur to enhance competitiveness of markets while protecting consumer choice.
that said, it still falls short of the effectiveness and efficiency of a well run single payer system.
also, caveat: it's not that people have no choice when it comes to their employer plan (they can totally get insurance on their own outside of it, and indeed some people used to need to due to being rejected by the employer plan over pre-existing conditions, or because it doesn't cover something that they need), but that because the employer plan is effectively subsidized through tax breaks for the employer (who then typically pays a portion of the premium cost for the employee), the employer plan is thus much cheaper for the employee than an outside plan.
you're an idiot if you think the ACA changed idea of going to an insurance company for insurance.
that's exactly what the exchanges are , only with greater transparency and competition than existed before, forcing them to disclose their fees upfront and in a collected location making it easier for the consumer to evaluation his choices between companies and plans. Imagine that.
who all insert themselves into the situation, and all try to control what care you actually get and who with.
um....its not about you and your doctor now simply by virtue of having insurance at all, regardless of whether its public or private.
private insurance is still a 3rd party. and they insert themselves even more forcefully.
the only way to escape THAT is by paying 100% out of your own pocket.
and that simply isn't possible for the bottom 99.9% of the population.
last time they tried to do that conservatives got all pissy about the IRS trying to enforce the law as written and get groups to use the more appropriate 501(d) section of tax law rather than 501(c), and successfully forced the IRS to back down.
only if you keep moving the goalposts as to what defines a republican.
that's all these cries of "RINO" are anyway: moving the goalposts each year as the GOP pushes itself further and further to the right.
BS yourself.
Requiring disclosure of who paid for the ads != free speech violation.
Controlling means content.
This has nothing to do with content.
This has nothing to do with restricting speech.
All this does is bring online political ads to the same standard that already exists for all other forms of political advertising (print, radio, tv, etc).
You once again are miscomprehending and misrepresenting the issue.