A crash in fossil fuel prices will certainly be disruptive, but it takes more than just disruption to cause a major financial crash.
Certainly many specific areas will face some pretty severe consequences from such a crash. States where fossil fuel exports make up a large fraction of their economy, such as Alaska or North Dakota, will be hit pretty severely. Nations that are doing similar, such as Saudi Arabia, will get it even worse. But most countries and areas are likely to sail through without dire consequences.
What could cause such a crash to turn into something like the 2007-2008 crash is debt: debt magnifies crashes. That's the reason why the housing bubble had such severe consequences: houses are typically debt-financed. The question, then, is how much of fossil fuel investment is leveraged, and where is that debt held? The answer to that question will determine whether there are wider consequences beyond oil-exporting areas.
Granted, the consequences within oil-exporting areas could be extremely severe if it triggers wars. Which is definitely a possibility in some such areas.
Historically, low energy prices usually lead to economic growth.
This is a pretty silly article. As the price drops high-cost producers will stop producing. If the demand outstrips the supply from the low-cost producers the price will rise, making higher-cost production more viable.
Traditional energy sources are predicted to drop in value, as many things will have moved to using alternative energy sources. By 2035 i imagine fossil fuel cars will no longer be in production, with fuel being available as a niche for classic car enthusiasts.
So sure you might be able to buy gasoline cheaply, but it won't be of any use to most people. Most industry similarly will have moved on to newer sources of energy.
Here's the IEA world energy outlook which takes into account likely policies.
"Global Demand Growth: Energy demand between 2015 and 2040 is expected to grow by a bit more than 28%, or 3,770 million tons oil equivalent (mtoe) worldwide. All of the increase in global demand—in fact, more than all (about 3,922 mtoe or 104%) of it—will come from non-Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries (i.e., developing countries). IEA expects that OECD (developed) countries will see their energy demand decline by about 4% while non-OECD demand jumps 49%."
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
Rulings against a few people have narrow implications for the most part especially at a district court judge level. Or do you not understand the judiciary among the many other things you don't seem to understand?
Just admit you were wrong about many, many things on this ruling.
It's clear that your Slashdot ID describes you perfectly.
But anyone with some math skills will tell you that with a 50% annual growth rate it doesn't matter much what the current percentage is, it can become a significant fraction of the total within a few years.
Lack of infrastructure doesn't need to be solved overnight either. It took years for gas stations to appear when ICE cars first appeared. If there is a demand, chargers will appear at restaurants, stores, parking lots, etc. either to attract customers or for profit. It wouldn't be unreasonable to locate chargers on lamp posts for metered street parking and pay for it in the same way as the meter (coins, credit card or phone app).
Simple math can be too simplistic. Here's the Global EV outlook report from the International Energy Agency https://www.iea.org/publicatio...
Their projection is by 2060 EV's could account for 60% of PLDV in circulation. That seems possible, a lot can change in 42 years. We might even see something better than EV in that time.
As for the infra issues, sure it took years for gas stations to be everywhere. But EV's are competing with the current state of that infrastructure, not the infrastructure of the year 1910. I think existing gas stations would add charger stations if the charging time drops to 5 minutes.
>> I posted the exact part of the ruling. If you can't understand it, then that's on you.
It is you who do not understand what the court ordered. Judges use precise language in their rulings. This ruling did not order anything at all.
From NBC news: "The ruling answered the question in front of the court, but the judge did not issue an order immediately requiring Trump to unblock or to stop blocking accounts. The judge wrote that the ruling declaring the law should be enough."
>> That's idiotic as saying that I'm not part of neighbors divorce but I am affected by their divorce.
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
From a Washington Post article: "To what extent does this decision affect other politicians and public officials? The ruling itself doesn't mention other public officials. But it does set a precedent that other public officials will be under pressure to obey, said Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute who argued the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York."
So let's review what you're saying now. You're still not admitting that the current ruling does not involve Twitter in any way but you want to bring up other potential and hypothetical lawsuits that haven't been filed yet against Twitter. Sometime in the future. Again, anyone can file a lawsuit in the future; how does that impact this ruling retroactively? The forward progress of our linear time puts a damper of courts going back into the past to change decisions. Second, you do understand that this ruling effectively lessens the impact of any future lawsuits as Twitter can reference this decision: Since this judge has ruled that public officials cannot block the public, Twitter has can file motions to dismiss in the future referencing this decision. That's something that the Feldman didn't even mention in that Twitter can contest being a party to a suit. A very effective way to conclude a lawsuit is not to be part of one.
You aren't admitting that fact the judge didn't order Trump to do anything.
I never said Twitter was involved in the current lawsuit. I said they would be affected by it and it could lead to future lawsuits against them. Individuals and entities are very often affected by lawsuits they were not a party to. In this case any public office holder who has blocked people on a Twitter account on which public policy announcements have been made is affected by this ruling even though they were not a party to it. The judge declared the practice unconstitutional. She doesn't have to go further and name everyone past, present, and future who has or might engage in it. As for Twitter itself, I've given my opinion and presented references to the legal arguments that could be made. The outcome is yet to be determined.
Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs] against Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."
NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something." I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:
Declaratory judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the @realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.
NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.
But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.
Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.
You still haven't told me where the judge ordered them to do something. You can't, because she didn't. The judge "presumes" they will stop blocking but didn't order them to do it anywhere because she concluded it was "unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time." The legal thicket being that it is unclear she can order the President to do anything period. She can probably order Scavino to do something, but Trump can just change his password.
As for the Twitter lawsuit potential, here's another article from Noah Feldman saying the same thing: "if Trump Can’t Block Twitter Users, Twitter Can’t Either" https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
No your original comment was this: "But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior". Your second comment was this: "The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?" You know we can scroll up right? Why are you lying about what your original comment was? Your original comments was that trying for frame the plaintiffs might have been blocked for harassing the President. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you tried to shift the argument.
Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
Why is it so hard for you to understand or admit that zero part of the ruling ordered Twitter to do anything? ZERO. The ruling specifically named two people to unblock the users: The President and Scavino. That is not an opinion of what the ruling says. It's not an interpretation. The ruling literally says "The President" must do something. No part of the ruling says "Twitter must" do something. Again read the ruling.
I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
You do understand the function of courts is also to determine who has standing and who is party to a suit. You can file a lawsuit against Twitter for any reason but the court has to agree that Twitter is a party to the suit. In this particular suit, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders because they were not part of the suit. Had the plaintiffs sued Twitter the court would have dismissed them from the suit because they are not part of the suit.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.
You claim you read the ruling but you keep saying things that are not part of the ruling. I would say that's you are not being consistent.
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something." I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
This is about the federal government conducting surveillance, by collecting data on everyone without first having evidence of a crime. It is unconstitutional for law enforcement people to collect this data, but not (under federal law) illegal for a private company to do it.ACLU should be allowed to verify this.
According to this article it isn't illegal and the ACLU knows it. They are trying to have it made illegal https://blogs.findlaw.com/blot...
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Now you're not arguing that you don't seem to understand (or read) any part of the ruling or that everything you said was essentially false about the implications to Twitter. Now you're trying to say I have to find a "better argument" when it seems every one of your arguments was either untrue or unsupported.
So let's review: First you argued that people could be blocked from Twitter if they were harassing. However you yourself didn't know whether the tweets were as such. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you to frame this as against Twitter. Again pointing to the ruling, Twitter was not instructed to do anything but Donald Trump and his staff were.
It seems every single step of the way, you either don't know something but asserted it and then tried to find another irrelevant arugment. The ruling is online for everyone to read. I suggest you read it.
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
"She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. "
one judge - nothing to argue about there
overturned plenty of times - she has been overturned. "Plenty" is subjective
"Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra." Judges aren't infallible - nothing to argue about there Speaking Ex Cathedra - it's a reference to the infallibility of the Pope when speaking Ex Cathedra i.e. "from the chair"
"Twitter is not government owned or operated." Nothing to argue there
"If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum." Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago. I think she's wrong but time will tell. The judge also declined to order them to unblock at this time, for good reason.
It clearly says on page one "Memorandum and order"
A fucking order is filed. I spend a good amount of time in courts. The Washington Post does not carry a bar certification - I carry a CA bar certification.
Good day.
CA Bar - That says a lot. So what exactly did the court order? Hmm, let's see what it says on page 73:
"Accordingly, though we conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose."
"Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is,” she adds a bit later, “we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.”
In other words: I’m not going to make Trump do this, but because I’ve determined that the blocks are unconstitutional, it is fully expected that Scavino will fix the problem.
What happens if the accounts aren’t unblocked? (At least one blocked user indicated that the block was still in place shortly after the decision was released.) It’s not clear, but the next step presumably would be a mandate to unblock them.
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
No your false equivalence is that because some judges get overturned, this judge will be overturned. You haven't addressed the part where I specifically mentioned that this is a Summary Judgement and what is the likelihood of an appeals court overturning a Summary Judgement. You didn't address this judge's record of appeals either.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
First of all that was your second false equivalence in that this ruling was not against Twitter.
Second, what part of the fact that Twitter admins are not blocking these users is so hard for you to understand. The President and his staff have blocked these users on his account. They admitted doing so there is no material issue of fact. The ruling does not say Twitter must unblock these users. It says the President and his staff must do so as they were the ones to do so. Twitter is specifically excluded from this ruling. If you read the ruling, the judge also dismisses the case against Hope Hicks as she no longer works for the administration as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders as it seems she was not involved. The ruling specifically instructs Daniel Scavino and Donald Trump to unblock the users.
Apparently you have no idea what false equivalence is. Find a better argument.
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
That's a false equivalence isn't it? Judges get overturned on appeal; however, do you know how often a judge is overturned on Summary Judgement much less this particular judge? Because of the nature and rules of Summary Judgement, I would argue that they are less often overturned because they are often
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The part you are not understanding is this is not a ruling against Twitter. This is a ruling against the President who is a public official. Twitter did not block the users; the President did. The rules of public officials operating in an official capacity are different than a private citizen.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing". The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
If you read the ruling, the President's legal team did not even attempt to argue that the posts were harassing. Rather they tried to frame his account as private and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction.
This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Please explain why you would think this would be overturned on appeal. This case was decided in Summary Judgement which means the court did not feel that a trial was even necessary.
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
I posted the rational separately. Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The judge doesn't need to issue an injunction and it's noted why in what you quoted. But woe be unto Trump if he doesn't follow this court order, that would give the court the ability to hold him in contempt.
You misunderstand. She didn't issue a court order.
"Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, said he thinks the case was wrongly decided and expects it to be reversed. For a public forum to exist, the government has to own or control it, he said, but in this case, Twitter also controls Trump's account.
Twitter has long been dogged by questions about how far its users’ right to speech may extend. In the past, its own executives have described the company as being “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” holding that Twitter takes no position on the messages posted by its users.
But the rise of online bullying, hate speech and harassment on Twitter’s platform has forced the company to confront its insistence on neutrality. Last year, the company unveiled new policies to address threats of violence or reports of abuse. And it has barred some controversial right-wing figures, such as the writer Milo Yiannopolous, from the platform for violating its policies.
Wednesday's ruling could complicate that debate, said Feldman, potentially giving people such as Yiannopolous grounds to sue Twitter and demand that they be permitted back on Twitter to view Trump's account and to participate in the public forum surrounding it.
"That is crazy," he said. "But it is a possible logical outcome of this decision."
Accordingly, though we conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court has directed that we should “assume it is substantially likely that the President and other executive . . . officials would abide by an authoritative interpretation of [a] . . . constitutional provision,” Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion); see Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. at 464 (citing Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion)); see also Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Klee, 861 F.3d 82, 96 (2d Cir. 2017); Made in the USA, 242 F.3d at 1310; Swan, 100 F.3d at 980; L.A. Cty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Were this court to issue the requested declaration, we must assume that it is substantially likely that [government officials] . . . would abide by our authoritative determination.”), and there is simply no reason to depart from this assumption at this time. Declaratory judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the Case 1:17-cv-05205-NRB Document 72 Filed 05/23/18 Page 73 of 75 74 @realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political views violates the First Amendment.
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior
There are many states in the world with even higher prices. You gas buddy must be wrong. And the electricity rate is a special rate for off-peak EV charging. The usual rate is around $0.2/kWh.
The GasBuddy URL clearly showed it was for USA prices. I interpreted your "US$5.8/US gal." to mean it was a price in the USA. If your gas price was $3 instead of $5.80 would you make a different decision?
Slashdot Mirror
Gas prices in the US are about 1/3rd what they are in the UK, and somehow it hasn't destroyed our economy.
Maybe gas is too cheap, considering the harm it does.
Texas alone is triple the size of the UK.
A crash in fossil fuel prices will certainly be disruptive, but it takes more than just disruption to cause a major financial crash.
Certainly many specific areas will face some pretty severe consequences from such a crash. States where fossil fuel exports make up a large fraction of their economy, such as Alaska or North Dakota, will be hit pretty severely. Nations that are doing similar, such as Saudi Arabia, will get it even worse. But most countries and areas are likely to sail through without dire consequences.
What could cause such a crash to turn into something like the 2007-2008 crash is debt: debt magnifies crashes. That's the reason why the housing bubble had such severe consequences: houses are typically debt-financed. The question, then, is how much of fossil fuel investment is leveraged, and where is that debt held? The answer to that question will determine whether there are wider consequences beyond oil-exporting areas.
Granted, the consequences within oil-exporting areas could be extremely severe if it triggers wars. Which is definitely a possibility in some such areas.
Historically, low energy prices usually lead to economic growth.
This is a pretty silly article. As the price drops high-cost producers will stop producing. If the demand outstrips the supply from the low-cost producers the price will rise, making higher-cost production more viable.
Here's an article on production costs: http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/2...
Frackers have a huge advantage in that they can shut down and start up very quickly, certainly much more quickly than deep water drillers.
Traditional energy sources are predicted to drop in value, as many things will have moved to using alternative energy sources. By 2035 i imagine fossil fuel cars will no longer be in production, with fuel being available as a niche for classic car enthusiasts.
So sure you might be able to buy gasoline cheaply, but it won't be of any use to most people. Most industry similarly will have moved on to newer sources of energy.
Here's the IEA world energy outlook which takes into account likely policies.
https://www.globalenergyinstit... ... gy-outlook
"Global Demand Growth: Energy demand between 2015 and 2040 is expected to grow by a bit more than 28%, or 3,770 million tons oil equivalent (mtoe) worldwide. All of the increase in global demand—in fact, more than all (about 3,922 mtoe or 104%) of it—will come from non-Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries (i.e., developing countries). IEA expects that OECD (developed) countries will see their energy demand decline by about 4% while non-OECD demand jumps 49%."
It's clear that your Slashdot ID describes you perfectly.
So you are admitting that you don't understand anything about the case or the judiciary?
No. I am accepting that engaging with a self-described unknowing fool is a waste of time.
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
Rulings against a few people have narrow implications for the most part especially at a district court judge level. Or do you not understand the judiciary among the many other things you don't seem to understand?
Just admit you were wrong about many, many things on this ruling.
It's clear that your Slashdot ID describes you perfectly.
But anyone with some math skills will tell you that with a 50% annual growth rate it doesn't matter much what the current percentage is, it can become a significant fraction of the total within a few years.
Lack of infrastructure doesn't need to be solved overnight either. It took years for gas stations to appear when ICE cars first appeared. If there is a demand, chargers will appear at restaurants, stores, parking lots, etc. either to attract customers or for profit. It wouldn't be unreasonable to locate chargers on lamp posts for metered street parking and pay for it in the same way as the meter (coins, credit card or phone app).
Simple math can be too simplistic. Here's the Global EV outlook report from the International Energy Agency
https://www.iea.org/publicatio...
Their projection is by 2060 EV's could account for 60% of PLDV in circulation. That seems possible, a lot can change in 42 years. We might even see something better than EV in that time.
As for the infra issues, sure it took years for gas stations to be everywhere. But EV's are competing with the current state of that infrastructure, not the infrastructure of the year 1910. I think existing gas stations would add charger stations if the charging time drops to 5 minutes.
Interesting article here with USA vehicle statistics: https://www.nanalyze.com/2017/...
Right now EV's are 0.22% of all cars on the road in the US. I couldn't find a chart that included hybrids.
>> I posted the exact part of the ruling. If you can't understand it, then that's on you.
It is you who do not understand what the court ordered. Judges use precise language in their rulings. This ruling did not order anything at all.
From NBC news: "The ruling answered the question in front of the court, but the judge did not issue an order immediately requiring Trump to unblock or to stop blocking accounts. The judge wrote that the ruling declaring the law should be enough."
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/t...
>> That's idiotic as saying that I'm not part of neighbors divorce but I am affected by their divorce.
O.K., believe that rulings on constitutional matters have narrow implications. Or instead believe the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.
From a Washington Post article: "To what extent does this decision affect other politicians and public officials?
The ruling itself doesn't mention other public officials. But it does set a precedent that other public officials will be under pressure to obey, said Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute who argued the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York."
So let's review what you're saying now. You're still not admitting that the current ruling does not involve Twitter in any way but you want to bring up other potential and hypothetical lawsuits that haven't been filed yet against Twitter. Sometime in the future. Again, anyone can file a lawsuit in the future; how does that impact this ruling retroactively? The forward progress of our linear time puts a damper of courts going back into the past to change decisions. Second, you do understand that this ruling effectively lessens the impact of any future lawsuits as Twitter can reference this decision: Since this judge has ruled that public officials cannot block the public, Twitter has can file motions to dismiss in the future referencing this decision. That's something that the Feldman didn't even mention in that Twitter can contest being a party to a suit. A very effective way to conclude a lawsuit is not to be part of one.
You aren't admitting that fact the judge didn't order Trump to do anything.
I never said Twitter was involved in the current lawsuit. I said they would be affected by it and it could lead to future lawsuits against them. Individuals and entities are very often affected by lawsuits they were not a party to. In this case any public office holder who has blocked people on a Twitter account on which public policy announcements have been made is affected by this ruling even though they were not a party to it. The judge declared the practice unconstitutional. She doesn't have to go further and name everyone past, present, and future who has or might engage in it. As for Twitter itself, I've given my opinion and presented references to the legal arguments that could be made. The outcome is yet to be determined.
The tap is not an active listener by default. You can make it one. I prefer not to.
Also, that feature to send messages has to be set up by the user. Otherwise it will not know your contacts.
You really need to read the thing
https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]
Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs]
against
Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."
NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something."
I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:
Declaratory
judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit
directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346
F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore
issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the
@realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political
views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s
blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under
the First Amendment. Because no government official is above the
law and because all government officials are presumed to follow
the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume
that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have
held to be unconstitutional.
NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.
But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.
Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.
You still haven't told me where the judge ordered them to do something. You can't, because she didn't. The judge "presumes" they will stop blocking but didn't order them to do it anywhere because she concluded it was "unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time." The legal thicket being that it is unclear she can order the President to do anything period. She can probably order Scavino to do something, but Trump can just change his password.
As for the Twitter lawsuit potential, here's another article from Noah Feldman saying the same thing: "if Trump Can’t Block Twitter Users, Twitter Can’t Either" https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
This is his bio: https://hls.harvard.edu/facult...
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
No your original comment was this: "But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior". Your second comment was this: "The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?" You know we can scroll up right? Why are you lying about what your original comment was? Your original comments was that trying for frame the plaintiffs might have been blocked for harassing the President. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you tried to shift the argument.
Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
Why is it so hard for you to understand or admit that zero part of the ruling ordered Twitter to do anything? ZERO. The ruling specifically named two people to unblock the users: The President and Scavino. That is not an opinion of what the ruling says. It's not an interpretation. The ruling literally says "The President" must do something. No part of the ruling says "Twitter must" do something. Again read the ruling.
I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
You do understand the function of courts is also to determine who has standing and who is party to a suit. You can file a lawsuit against Twitter for any reason but the court has to agree that Twitter is a party to the suit. In this particular suit, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders because they were not part of the suit. Had the plaintiffs sued Twitter the court would have dismissed them from the suit because they are not part of the suit.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.
You claim you read the ruling but you keep saying things that are not part of the ruling. I would say that's you are not being consistent.
You really need to read the thing
https://knightcolumbia.org/sit...
For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something."
I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."
This is about the federal government conducting surveillance, by collecting data on everyone without first having evidence of a crime.
It is unconstitutional for law enforcement people to collect this data, but not (under federal law) illegal for a private company to do it.ACLU should be allowed to verify this.
According to this article it isn't illegal and the ACLU knows it. They are trying to have it made illegal
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blot...
Here is the linked ACLU report
https://www.aclu.org/files/ass...
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Now you're not arguing that you don't seem to understand (or read) any part of the ruling or that everything you said was essentially false about the implications to Twitter. Now you're trying to say I have to find a "better argument" when it seems every one of your arguments was either untrue or unsupported.
So let's review: First you argued that people could be blocked from Twitter if they were harassing. However you yourself didn't know whether the tweets were as such. When pointed out that the President's legal team did not make that argument then you to frame this as against Twitter. Again pointing to the ruling, Twitter was not instructed to do anything but Donald Trump and his staff were.
It seems every single step of the way, you either don't know something but asserted it and then tried to find another irrelevant arugment. The ruling is online for everyone to read. I suggest you read it.
OK, This was my original comment, broken down for the slow
"She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. "
one judge - nothing to argue about there
overturned plenty of times - she has been overturned. "Plenty" is subjective
"Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra."
Judges aren't infallible - nothing to argue about there
Speaking Ex Cathedra - it's a reference to the infallibility of the Pope when speaking Ex Cathedra i.e. "from the chair"
"Twitter is not government owned or operated."
Nothing to argue there
"If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum."
Matter of opinion, you can argue this if you like. I think they will get sued by people who get blocked.
I read the ruling. The judge declared that muting was o.k., blocking wasn't. This was consistent with what she said months ago.
I think she's wrong but time will tell.
The judge also declined to order them to unblock at this time, for good reason.
You did not rad it.
https://knightcolumbia.org/sit...
It clearly says on page one "Memorandum and order"
A fucking order is filed. I spend a good amount of time in courts. The Washington Post does not carry a bar certification - I carry a CA bar certification.
Good day.
CA Bar - That says a lot. So what exactly did the court order? Hmm, let's see what it says on page 73:
"Accordingly, though we conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose."
"a declaration will therefore issue"
It's very clear in the order, if you read it.
I did read it. Here's an analysis from The Washington Post that says you are wrong:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is,” she adds a bit later, “we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.”
In other words: I’m not going to make Trump do this, but because I’ve determined that the blocks are unconstitutional, it is fully expected that Scavino will fix the problem.
What happens if the accounts aren’t unblocked? (At least one blocked user indicated that the block was still in place shortly after the decision was released.) It’s not clear, but the next step presumably would be a mandate to unblock them.
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
No your false equivalence is that because some judges get overturned, this judge will be overturned. You haven't addressed the part where I specifically mentioned that this is a Summary Judgement and what is the likelihood of an appeals court overturning a Summary Judgement. You didn't address this judge's record of appeals either.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
First of all that was your second false equivalence in that this ruling was not against Twitter.
Second, what part of the fact that Twitter admins are not blocking these users is so hard for you to understand. The President and his staff have blocked these users on his account. They admitted doing so there is no material issue of fact. The ruling does not say Twitter must unblock these users. It says the President and his staff must do so as they were the ones to do so. Twitter is specifically excluded from this ruling. If you read the ruling, the judge also dismisses the case against Hope Hicks as she no longer works for the administration as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders as it seems she was not involved. The ruling specifically instructs Daniel Scavino and Donald Trump to unblock the users.
Apparently you have no idea what false equivalence is. Find a better argument.
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
That's a false equivalence isn't it? Judges get overturned on appeal; however, do you know how often a judge is overturned on Summary Judgement much less this particular judge? Because of the nature and rules of Summary Judgement, I would argue that they are less often overturned because they are often
I made no false equivalence. I stated that this is the opinion of one judge, and judges aren't infallible.
Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The part you are not understanding is this is not a ruling against Twitter. This is a ruling against the President who is a public official. Twitter did not block the users; the President did. The rules of public officials operating in an official capacity are different than a private citizen.
The ruling was not against Twitter but it will affect them nonetheless. Anyone blocked by Twitter can now sue claiming they are being denied access to read and respond in the public forum for interacting with the President of the United States.
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing". The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
If you read the ruling, the President's legal team did not even attempt to argue that the posts were harassing. Rather they tried to frame his account as private and therefore not subject to any jurisdiction.
This case requires us to consider whether a public official
may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from
his Twitter account in response to the political views that person
has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public
official is the President of the United States. The answer to
both questions is no.
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Please explain why you would think this would be overturned on appeal. This case was decided in Summary Judgement which means the court did not feel that a trial was even necessary.
She's one judge and she has been overturned plenty of times. Judges aren't infallible even if they think they are speaking Ex Cathedra.
I posted the rational separately. Twitter is not government owned or operated. If this ruling stands Twitter as a private company would be unable to enforce it's own policies on blocking users because such blocking would prevent the user from participating in the public forum.
The judge doesn't need to issue an injunction and it's noted why in what you quoted. But woe be unto Trump if he doesn't follow this court order, that would give the court the ability to hold him in contempt.
You misunderstand. She didn't issue a court order.
From the Washington Post:
"Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, said he thinks the case was wrongly decided and expects it to be reversed. For a public forum to exist, the government has to own or control it, he said, but in this case, Twitter also controls Trump's account.
Twitter has long been dogged by questions about how far its users’ right to speech may extend. In the past, its own executives have described the company as being “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” holding that Twitter takes no position on the messages posted by its users.
But the rise of online bullying, hate speech and harassment on Twitter’s platform has forced the company to confront its insistence on neutrality. Last year, the company unveiled new policies to address threats of violence or reports of abuse. And it has barred some controversial right-wing figures, such as the writer Milo Yiannopolous, from the platform for violating its policies.
Wednesday's ruling could complicate that debate, said Feldman, potentially giving people such as Yiannopolous grounds to sue Twitter and demand that they be permitted back on Twitter to view Trump's account and to participate in the public forum surrounding it.
"That is crazy," he said. "But it is a possible logical outcome of this decision."
Which is a completely different matter. However in the case of the plaintiffs, they posted tweets critical of the President's policies.
There is a difference between "critical" and "offensive and harrassing".
The latter would get you ejected from any public forum. I wonder if the plaintiffs submitted to the court the tweets that got them blocked?
I don't think this ruling will stand on appeal.
Accordingly, though we conclude that injunctive relief may be
awarded in this case -- at minimum, against Scavino -- we decline
to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to
achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court has directed that we
should “assume it is substantially likely that the President and
other executive . . . officials would abide by an authoritative
interpretation of [a] . . . constitutional provision,” Franklin,
505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion); see Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S.
at 464 (citing Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803 (plurality opinion)); see
also Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Klee, 861 F.3d 82, 96 (2d Cir. 2017); Made
in the USA, 242 F.3d at 1310; Swan, 100 F.3d at 980; L.A. Cty. Bar
Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Were this court
to issue the requested declaration, we must assume that it is
substantially likely that [government officials] . . . would abide
by our authoritative determination.”), and there is simply no
reason to depart from this assumption at this time. Declaratory
judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit
directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346
F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore
issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the
Case 1:17-cv-05205-NRB Document 72 Filed 05/23/18 Page 73 of 75
74
@realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political
views violates the First Amendment.
That's not remotely what the ruling says. Twitter can be considered a public forum and that public officials cannot block the public from a public forum regardless of their citizenship. If a mayor has a public town meeting, they can't block non US citizens from it who might be visiting or residing in the town.
But you can be ejected from the public forum for bad behavior
There are many states in the world with even higher prices. You gas buddy must be wrong. And the electricity rate is a special rate for off-peak EV charging. The usual rate is around $0.2/kWh.
The GasBuddy URL clearly showed it was for USA prices. I interpreted your "US$5.8/US gal." to mean it was a price in the USA.
If your gas price was $3 instead of $5.80 would you make a different decision?