The decision by the courts would be that Google be allowed to list the American's post so as to not violate the posters free speech rights.
Google is under no obligation to publish anybody's post. Free speech rights only apply vis-a-vis the government. If Google chooses, they can fully comply with whatever hare-brained censorship Europeans want to apply world-wide.
What the EU can't do is force other US sites to comply. If you only do business in the US, you can tell the EU to take a flying f*ck when they come with censorship demands. And if the EU wants to block their citizens from participating in US discussion boards or Wikipedia, they have to pull the plug on their end.
The EU seems to have Google in their sights, but I'm not sure what Google did to get them quite so riled up.
Google is commercially successful and threatens numerous European businesses; those businesses lobby their governments to get protection and to make life hard for Google. Some of those businesses also control European newspapers and TV stations, so it's easy for them to spread views hostile to Google. And European intellectuals have generally been anti-American anyway for as long as the US has existed, so all of that lobbying is falling on fertile ground. Or, to put it more succinctly: the causes are money and chauvinism.
What does a story about Amazon shipping charges have to do with Google? In any case, Amazon is complying with French law: they are charging for shipping. You'd think that all those highly educated, literate, and cultured French lawmakers are capable of writing correct laws, no?
Since Amazon probably gets sweet deals from shipping companies, they'd probably still be accused of trying to undermine the law even if they charged an estimate of their actual shipping costs. So, they might as well just comply with the letter of the law and let the French lawmakers go back to changing it.
"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
Yes, as opposed to the French government etc. That means that only the laws of the US apply. It does not mean that the US government can impose arbitrary restrictions on the air above people's private property.
The only air rights you have over your property are those you can reasonably use in connection with the property, e.g. adding another storey to your house
No, traditionally, I have rights "from heaven to hell", i.e., everything above and below my property. When commercial aviation appeared, an act of Congress limited that right upwards in order to enable commercial aviation. The intent of those laws was certainly not to create the legal situation you state.
The FAA is now attempting to encroach on the space above private land further, and they are trying to do it simply by issuing regulations and hoping that they stick. That is wrong. One can debate whether the FAA should have this expanded authority, but granting that authority should require an act of Congress, not simply rule making by the FAA.
Stop being so naive. It's not "the French people" vs a "private company". This whole thing is about wealthy and powerful European publishers trying to rid themselves of competition that's threatening to erode their profits and their power, and local bookstores are a pawn in that issue.
As for the French people, if the majority wanted to shop at local bookstores, the issue would be moot, because local bookstores wouldn't be going out of businesses. Of course, even if the majority had that preference, it still doesn't have the right to impose that on the minority who prefers to shop at Amazon; the ability to engage in business without arbitrary restraints is essential to democracy.
I really don't see how making books more expensive than they need to be by adopting policies that support physical bookstores helps anybody. Shouldn't the goal be to make reading and culture as affordable as possible and meet the needs of buyers, instead of imposing particular delivery methods?
I can account for ballistics, yes. Kind of depends on the size of the property doesn't it?
Furthermore, there is no need for regulation there. If I were stupid enough to injure you by taking reckless action against a drone that was violating my private property, you can already recover damages and penalties under existing law; there are no new regulations needed.
No, it's not "air traffic" because it's not "traffic": it is simply something you do on your private property in your private airspace, airspace that you own. It's the FAA's job to keep traffic out of your private airspace. It isn't their job to regulate what you do there.
And you are absolutely right that there is a safety aspect there and that I don't want a drone outside my bedroom window. That is why the FAA's attempts to assert jurisdiction over my private airspace are so disconcerting, because if the FAA has jurisdiction, they can (and don't kid yourself, will) allow Amazon to violate what is currently my private property.
You are erroneously assuming that the FAA is trying to protect you and your rights, when the only consequence of the extension of their jurisdiction is to take away your property rights and prepare for intrusions into what used to be something that you had total control over as a property owner.
The FAA was created to regulate passenger and air traffic, not to assert arbitrary authority over any airspace above our heads.
And even with the massive mission creep, airplanes need to stay 1000ft above any buildings on private settled land. What you do below that on your land is your own business, and it should stay your own business.
That means that if you want to shoot down low-flying Amazon delivery drones, you should be able to do that. Likewise, if you want to fly your own drone to take pictures of your own property, you should be able to do that too as long as you stay below 1000ft.
And make no mistake, FAA's attempts to assert authority have nothing to do with safety. The motivating factor here is power and money. Ultimately, the FAA wants to assert rights over the non-aviation airspace over your property, something they never had any say about in the past. And the people benefiting from it won't be you, it will be a few wealthy corporations that will be flying low-flying drones through your backyard whether you want to or not.
Whether a driver and a passenger decide to hook up and drive around together via an app should be nobody's business. Attempting to regulate this is just an attempt by entrenched special interests and their cronies in city government to block competition. Kick these jerks out next election.
Even if the US emitted no carbon at all, it wouldn't make much difference, since China and India are dwarfing its contributions in climate models and predictions, and they are not going to sign up to such nonsense.
And anybody who thinks we can plan economic development like that is an utter fool; if the failure of the USSR central planning doesn't convince you, just look at the complete failure of Obama's own economic predictions or the effects of his policies.
I didn't say that they weren't investing in it. I simply said that if green energy can deliver what it promises, then people will invest in it voluntarily, without government coercion or subsidies.
(However, if you check Yahoo Finance for green energy funds like RENIXX, you'll see that they have been performing horribly, so apparently few people share your confidence.)
No, that's wrong. When they are not carrying passengers, they simply have lower legal requirements, but their actual coverage is likely higher than the minimum legal requirements.
And what difference does it make anyway? Why shouldn't the same insurance rates apply to everybody, simply based on mileage, driving history, and vehicle type? I mean, if I wanted to pick out a category of drivers to charge more, it would be mothers with children in their cars (they are dangerous), not Uber drivers looking for rides.
You keep repeating this paranoid b.s. about the "kings" getting financially hurt by a switch to green energy. How? Any company that is now selling you oil can just sell you whatever other energy source you like, and make a bigger profit than they would with selling you fossil fuels. That's exactly what's happening in places like Germany.
What's actually happening is that "green energy" companies are lobbying for massive government handouts without ever being able to deliver, and folks like you fall for it and even fancy themselves as a crusader for what is good and right. If you want to see a crony capitalist, look in the mirror: it's dopes like you that enable corporate greed and government corruption.
I may be wrong, but I feel like you missed the point of the post above you... the "$20 trillion dollar bank account", I took to be an analogy for the world's fossil fuel reserves.
And I'm afraid you missed the point of my post. The error in the OP was assuming that the "dilemma" is between the wealth of a few ("the king") vs the wealth of many. But the actual choice we face is whether we all are choosing to stay wealthy (even if it may be risky) or choosing to be significantly poorer.
But it seems like an indirect approach compared to convincing a government that controls a lot of fuel reserves to just stop drilling them out and leave them buried.
To be effective, you don't have to convince "a government", you have to convince all major governments. And you have to convince them to do something that will cause living standards to fall for years to come. No government is going to do that. Most importantly, neither China nor India are going to do it, no matter what the US or Europe say or do, and that makes the whole debate pointless.
I didn't come up with the name, I'm just using the term from the TFA. Almost all government subsidies should be abolished, so whatever TFA considers a "fossil fuel subsidy" is a good candidate for elimination because both progressives and conservatives should be able to agree on eliminating it. I don't care whether people agree to eliminating it out of the mistaken belief that it will reduce carbon emissions.
Then one day some hippies tell you that you shouldn't withdraw your money from this bank because it will destroy the lives of billions of people. They're saying we need to invest in renewable energy so save ourselves.
"Money" that people have "in the bank" is really ownership of companies. What you call "withdrawing" means reallocating that money, closing one kind of business and firing its employees, and opening another kind of business and hiring people there. Whether that's a good or bad deal depends on exactly what the new business does compared to the old business.
What do you choose? What do they choose?
They choose to attempt to maximize the return on their investment, which is both in their interest and in society's interest.
So you face a dillema:
No, the "dilemma" you imagine doesn't exist. Rich people aren't hurt by shifting their investments from one kind of company to another kind. If Obama pours billions of subsidies into "green energy", the same people who own oil companies and profit from it will just switch over to those companies. So will your pension fund.
Really the only question is whether the new "green energy companies" will deliver what they promise; that's the part that's doubtful, because if they did, why wouldn't people be investing in them voluntarily?
I'm all for ending fossil fuel subsidies. While we're at it, we should also end the other major subsidy related to carbon emissions: agricultural subsidies.
But that won't reduce carbon emissions appreciably, even if we took all that money and handed it to "green energy companies" on a silver platter.
He said he had parked in the mall parking lot and had a confrontation while through the mall to the street with security guards who objected to his attire. The guards told police that Jamerson had trespassed on mall property.
His arrest wasn't for speaking at a street corner in a tutu, it was trespassing on mall property, which he arguably did (that was for a judge to sort out).
However for the police to force him to make a FB post is unacceptable. A court might have ordered that, but police shouldn't be allowed to coerce people in this way.
The error here is not with SCOTUS, it's with people who hear "corporation" and think "GM" and "Apple". There is indeed no reason why GM or Apple should engage in political speech or have religious rights as corporations.
But it is precisely the fact that many corporations are "closely held" that justifies this ruling: most corporations are not big, nameless behemoths, they are small organizations founded and run by a small number of people. Denying these individuals free speech or religious freedom when they run their business would be wrong.
Many other "corporations" are nonprofit corporations expressly created for the purpose of speaking on political matters or supporting a religious community. How are people supposed to organize politically or religiously themselves if they can't form nonprofit corporations?
Without being able to form a corporation, many forms of political activity, speech, and business would simply be too legally risky to engage in. That's why we have for-profit and nonprofit corporations in the first place.
If you want to build good security, you need to know what threats you are trying to protect against: NSA spying? Thieves stealing your financial information? European spying? Chinese industrial espionage? Jealous wife? Corrupt prosecutor? MPAA fishing expeditions? Depending on the threat, the security solutions look rather different. Which of these use cases is the phone actually suitable for?
And there are plenty of open questions about the security this phone claims to provide. How do we know we can trust the employees of the companies involved? Which jurisdictions apply to the phone, the software, and the services? Who can push updates? Which parts of the software did they audit and how and who? Did they close off any attacks against the baseband processor or is that still wide open?
I think if you want a secure mobile setup, you're far better off going with something simpler: get a dumb phone, a mobile hotspot, and a Linux laptop; run VPN and VoIP from the laptop. You're going to get better security and a much more transparent system than Blackphone.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is under no obligation to publish anybody's post. Free speech rights only apply vis-a-vis the government. If Google chooses, they can fully comply with whatever hare-brained censorship Europeans want to apply world-wide.
What the EU can't do is force other US sites to comply. If you only do business in the US, you can tell the EU to take a flying f*ck when they come with censorship demands. And if the EU wants to block their citizens from participating in US discussion boards or Wikipedia, they have to pull the plug on their end.
Google is commercially successful and threatens numerous European businesses; those businesses lobby their governments to get protection and to make life hard for Google. Some of those businesses also control European newspapers and TV stations, so it's easy for them to spread views hostile to Google. And European intellectuals have generally been anti-American anyway for as long as the US has existed, so all of that lobbying is falling on fertile ground. Or, to put it more succinctly: the causes are money and chauvinism.
What does a story about Amazon shipping charges have to do with Google? In any case, Amazon is complying with French law: they are charging for shipping. You'd think that all those highly educated, literate, and cultured French lawmakers are capable of writing correct laws, no?
Since Amazon probably gets sweet deals from shipping companies, they'd probably still be accused of trying to undermine the law even if they charged an estimate of their actual shipping costs. So, they might as well just comply with the letter of the law and let the French lawmakers go back to changing it.
Yes, as opposed to the French government etc. That means that only the laws of the US apply. It does not mean that the US government can impose arbitrary restrictions on the air above people's private property.
No, traditionally, I have rights "from heaven to hell", i.e., everything above and below my property. When commercial aviation appeared, an act of Congress limited that right upwards in order to enable commercial aviation. The intent of those laws was certainly not to create the legal situation you state.
The FAA is now attempting to encroach on the space above private land further, and they are trying to do it simply by issuing regulations and hoping that they stick. That is wrong. One can debate whether the FAA should have this expanded authority, but granting that authority should require an act of Congress, not simply rule making by the FAA.
Stop being so naive. It's not "the French people" vs a "private company". This whole thing is about wealthy and powerful European publishers trying to rid themselves of competition that's threatening to erode their profits and their power, and local bookstores are a pawn in that issue.
As for the French people, if the majority wanted to shop at local bookstores, the issue would be moot, because local bookstores wouldn't be going out of businesses. Of course, even if the majority had that preference, it still doesn't have the right to impose that on the minority who prefers to shop at Amazon; the ability to engage in business without arbitrary restraints is essential to democracy.
I really don't see how making books more expensive than they need to be by adopting policies that support physical bookstores helps anybody. Shouldn't the goal be to make reading and culture as affordable as possible and meet the needs of buyers, instead of imposing particular delivery methods?
I can account for ballistics, yes. Kind of depends on the size of the property doesn't it?
Furthermore, there is no need for regulation there. If I were stupid enough to injure you by taking reckless action against a drone that was violating my private property, you can already recover damages and penalties under existing law; there are no new regulations needed.
No, it's not "air traffic" because it's not "traffic": it is simply something you do on your private property in your private airspace, airspace that you own. It's the FAA's job to keep traffic out of your private airspace. It isn't their job to regulate what you do there.
And you are absolutely right that there is a safety aspect there and that I don't want a drone outside my bedroom window. That is why the FAA's attempts to assert jurisdiction over my private airspace are so disconcerting, because if the FAA has jurisdiction, they can (and don't kid yourself, will) allow Amazon to violate what is currently my private property.
You are erroneously assuming that the FAA is trying to protect you and your rights, when the only consequence of the extension of their jurisdiction is to take away your property rights and prepare for intrusions into what used to be something that you had total control over as a property owner.
The FAA was created to regulate passenger and air traffic, not to assert arbitrary authority over any airspace above our heads.
And even with the massive mission creep, airplanes need to stay 1000ft above any buildings on private settled land. What you do below that on your land is your own business, and it should stay your own business.
That means that if you want to shoot down low-flying Amazon delivery drones, you should be able to do that. Likewise, if you want to fly your own drone to take pictures of your own property, you should be able to do that too as long as you stay below 1000ft.
And make no mistake, FAA's attempts to assert authority have nothing to do with safety. The motivating factor here is power and money. Ultimately, the FAA wants to assert rights over the non-aviation airspace over your property, something they never had any say about in the past. And the people benefiting from it won't be you, it will be a few wealthy corporations that will be flying low-flying drones through your backyard whether you want to or not.
Whether a driver and a passenger decide to hook up and drive around together via an app should be nobody's business. Attempting to regulate this is just an attempt by entrenched special interests and their cronies in city government to block competition. Kick these jerks out next election.
Even if the US emitted no carbon at all, it wouldn't make much difference, since China and India are dwarfing its contributions in climate models and predictions, and they are not going to sign up to such nonsense.
And anybody who thinks we can plan economic development like that is an utter fool; if the failure of the USSR central planning doesn't convince you, just look at the complete failure of Obama's own economic predictions or the effects of his policies.
I didn't say that they weren't investing in it. I simply said that if green energy can deliver what it promises, then people will invest in it voluntarily, without government coercion or subsidies.
(However, if you check Yahoo Finance for green energy funds like RENIXX, you'll see that they have been performing horribly, so apparently few people share your confidence.)
No, that's wrong. When they are not carrying passengers, they simply have lower legal requirements, but their actual coverage is likely higher than the minimum legal requirements.
And what difference does it make anyway? Why shouldn't the same insurance rates apply to everybody, simply based on mileage, driving history, and vehicle type? I mean, if I wanted to pick out a category of drivers to charge more, it would be mothers with children in their cars (they are dangerous), not Uber drivers looking for rides.
You keep repeating this paranoid b.s. about the "kings" getting financially hurt by a switch to green energy. How? Any company that is now selling you oil can just sell you whatever other energy source you like, and make a bigger profit than they would with selling you fossil fuels. That's exactly what's happening in places like Germany.
What's actually happening is that "green energy" companies are lobbying for massive government handouts without ever being able to deliver, and folks like you fall for it and even fancy themselves as a crusader for what is good and right. If you want to see a crony capitalist, look in the mirror: it's dopes like you that enable corporate greed and government corruption.
And I'm afraid you missed the point of my post. The error in the OP was assuming that the "dilemma" is between the wealth of a few ("the king") vs the wealth of many. But the actual choice we face is whether we all are choosing to stay wealthy (even if it may be risky) or choosing to be significantly poorer.
To be effective, you don't have to convince "a government", you have to convince all major governments. And you have to convince them to do something that will cause living standards to fall for years to come. No government is going to do that. Most importantly, neither China nor India are going to do it, no matter what the US or Europe say or do, and that makes the whole debate pointless.
I didn't come up with the name, I'm just using the term from the TFA. Almost all government subsidies should be abolished, so whatever TFA considers a "fossil fuel subsidy" is a good candidate for elimination because both progressives and conservatives should be able to agree on eliminating it. I don't care whether people agree to eliminating it out of the mistaken belief that it will reduce carbon emissions.
"Money" that people have "in the bank" is really ownership of companies. What you call "withdrawing" means reallocating that money, closing one kind of business and firing its employees, and opening another kind of business and hiring people there. Whether that's a good or bad deal depends on exactly what the new business does compared to the old business.
They choose to attempt to maximize the return on their investment, which is both in their interest and in society's interest.
No, the "dilemma" you imagine doesn't exist. Rich people aren't hurt by shifting their investments from one kind of company to another kind. If Obama pours billions of subsidies into "green energy", the same people who own oil companies and profit from it will just switch over to those companies. So will your pension fund.
Really the only question is whether the new "green energy companies" will deliver what they promise; that's the part that's doubtful, because if they did, why wouldn't people be investing in them voluntarily?
I'm all for ending fossil fuel subsidies. While we're at it, we should also end the other major subsidy related to carbon emissions: agricultural subsidies.
But that won't reduce carbon emissions appreciably, even if we took all that money and handed it to "green energy companies" on a silver platter.
His arrest wasn't for speaking at a street corner in a tutu, it was trespassing on mall property, which he arguably did (that was for a judge to sort out).
However for the police to force him to make a FB post is unacceptable. A court might have ordered that, but police shouldn't be allowed to coerce people in this way.
The error here is not with SCOTUS, it's with people who hear "corporation" and think "GM" and "Apple". There is indeed no reason why GM or Apple should engage in political speech or have religious rights as corporations.
But it is precisely the fact that many corporations are "closely held" that justifies this ruling: most corporations are not big, nameless behemoths, they are small organizations founded and run by a small number of people. Denying these individuals free speech or religious freedom when they run their business would be wrong.
Many other "corporations" are nonprofit corporations expressly created for the purpose of speaking on political matters or supporting a religious community. How are people supposed to organize politically or religiously themselves if they can't form nonprofit corporations?
Without being able to form a corporation, many forms of political activity, speech, and business would simply be too legally risky to engage in. That's why we have for-profit and nonprofit corporations in the first place.
If you want to build good security, you need to know what threats you are trying to protect against: NSA spying? Thieves stealing your financial information? European spying? Chinese industrial espionage? Jealous wife? Corrupt prosecutor? MPAA fishing expeditions? Depending on the threat, the security solutions look rather different. Which of these use cases is the phone actually suitable for?
And there are plenty of open questions about the security this phone claims to provide. How do we know we can trust the employees of the companies involved? Which jurisdictions apply to the phone, the software, and the services? Who can push updates? Which parts of the software did they audit and how and who? Did they close off any attacks against the baseband processor or is that still wide open?
I think if you want a secure mobile setup, you're far better off going with something simpler: get a dumb phone, a mobile hotspot, and a Linux laptop; run VPN and VoIP from the laptop. You're going to get better security and a much more transparent system than Blackphone.